BT 

I  Mo   HE  CONCEPT  OF  MORTAL 
SIN    IN    EARLY 
CHRISTIANITY 


BY  THE 

Reverend  Hubert  Louis /Motry,  S.TX., 

OP 

The  Diocese  of  Albany,  N.  Y. 


DISSERTATION 

Submitted  to  the  Faculty  of  Theology  at  the  Catholic 

University  of  America  in  Partial  Fulfillment  of  the 

Requirements  for  the  Doctorate  in  Sacred 

Theology 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C, 
1920. 


EXCHANGE 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/conceptofmortalsOOmotrrich 


THE  CONCEPT  OF  MORTAL 

SIN    IN    EARLY 

CHRISTIANITY 


BY  THE 

Reverend  Hubert  Louis  Motry,  S.TX., 

OP 

The  Diocese  of  Albany,  N.  Y. 


DISSERTATION 

Submitted  to  the  Faculty  of  Theology  at  the  Catholic 

University  of  America  in  Partial  Fulfillment  of  the 

Requirements  for  the  Doctorate  in  Sacred 

Theology 


The  Catholic  University  of  America 


Washington,  D.  C^ 
lft2«i 


^u 


WCCH'       1 


H 


K*CCHANGE 


Nihil  obstat. 

Joannes  A.  Ryan,  Censor  DepiUatiLS. 

Die  XV  Martii,  1921. 


Imprimatur. 

J.  Card.  Gibbons,  Archiepiscopus  Baltimorensis, 

Baltimorae. 

Die  XV  Martii,  1921. 


frxCHANOC 


CONTENTS. 

Introduction    i 

Abbreviations iv 

FIRST  PART. 

Authors  and  Documents  of  the  Pre-TertuUianic  Period* 

Chtptcr  Paff« 

I  The  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles 3 

II  St.  Barnabas  and  St.  Clement  of  Rome 10 

III  St.  Ignatius  and  St.  Polycarp 17 

IV  The  Shepherd  of  Hermas  20 

V  St.  Justin 27 

VI  St.  Irenaeus  33 

SECOND  PART. 

Tertullian. 

VII  Preliminaries.    TertuUian's  Works.    His  Views 

on  Christian  Perfection 41 

VIII  Tertullian's  View  on  the  Nature  of  Sin 60 

IX  TertuUian's  View  on  the  Prerequisites  of  Moral 

Responsibility,  Cognition  and  Volition 66 

X  Tertullian's  View  on  the  Beginnings  of  Sin  ...  65 
XI  Various  Views  on  TertuUian's  Divisions  of  Sin   75 
XII  "Mortal"  and  Alleged  Synonyms  in  Tertullian's 

Works    85 

XIII  The  fertuUianic  Term  "Mortal"  101 

XIV  Catholic  Concept  of  Mortal  and  Venial  Sin  in 

TertuUian's  Works   124 

XV  Summary   157 

Bibliography   159 


^52390 


INTRODUCTION.  ""^ 

Moral  Theology  enumerates  among  its  sources  the 
writings  of  the  Fathers.  The  present  study  is  an  at- 
tempt to  gather  from  the  earliest  documents  of  this 
source  the  texts  that  have  reference  to  the  concept  of 
mortal  sin,  and  to  determine  the  value  of  such  passages 
for  the  fundamental  notion  of  grievous  transgression. 
The  period  from  which  these  documents  are  taken  ex- 
tends well  into  the  first  half  of  the  third  century. 

The  expression  "Concept  of  Mortal  Sin"  is  used  in 
this  dissertation  in  its  broader  sense,  comprehending  not 
only  the  nature,  the  extent,  the  required  conditions  of 
grievous  sin,  and  chiefly  its  contra-distinction  to  venial 
sin,  but  also  the  practical  application  of  the  concept  to 
the  various  kinds  of  violation  of  moral  precepts.  The 
theoretical  concept,  therefore,  and  the  practical,  come 
into  consideration.  By  "mortal  sin"  is  understood  per- 
sonal mortal  sin,  not  original  sin. 

As  with  other  theological  concepts,  we  do  not  expect 
to  find  a  formal  definition  at  so  early  a  period  as  the  first 
and  second  centuries.  It  is  only  in  the  second  half  of  the 
second  century  that  we  find  the  defense  of  Christian 
morality  assigning  a  gradually  more  discernible  outline 
to  the  concepts  in  question. 

The  dogmatico-historical  discussion  on  penance  and 
confession  in  primitive  Christianity  is  not  treated  ex 
professo;  sufficiently  important  points  of  contact  of  the 
present  investigation  with  the  discussion  mentioned  will 
be  indicated  in  the  course  of  the  First  Part.  We  refrain 
from  referring  to  the  discussion  in  the  Second  Part 
The  subject  becomes  quite  complicated  in  TertuUian's 
works  and  would  lead  far  beyond  the  scope  of  our  pres- 
ent study.  We  have  found  nothing  in  his  writings  that 
could  be  construed  as  conclusive  against  the  milder  view 
of  Pesch,  Esser,  Stufler,  D'Alds,  "and  Catholic  theolo- 
gians generally."* 

1    Rauschen,  "Eucharist  and  Penance,"  p.  153  sqq.    Eng.  trans!, 
of  2nd  Germ,  ed.,  St.  Louis,  1913. 

(i) 


ii  INTRODUCTION 

The  First  Part  of  the  book  deals  with  the  Pre-Tertul- 
lianic  documents.  They  treat  extensively  of  moral 
topics,  especially  so  the  Didache  and  the  Pastor  Hermae, 
but  their  contribution  to  the  concepts  of  mortal  sin  and 
its  various  aspects  is,  at  least  at  the  present  stage  of  in- 
vestigation of  early  patristic  writings,  proportionately 
small  in  comparison  with  that  of  the  works  of  Tertullian, 
though  it  is  by  no  means  a  negligible  quantity.  Hence 
the  apparently  disproportionate  consideration  given  to 
the  Pre-Tertullianic  and  to  the  Tertullianic  documents. 

The  Second  Part  is  devoted  exclusively  to  the  study  of 
Tertullian.  The  writings  of  the  Pre-Tertullianic  period 
may  be  considered  in  a  justifiable  sense  as  merely  pre- 
liminarily constructive  of  his  orthodox  theology.  Tix- 
eront  claims  that  Tertullian  deserves  pre-eminently  the 
title  of  Founder  of  Theology  in  the  West.^  Barden- 
hewer,  while  valuating  the  influence  of  Tertullian  on 
later  theology  (in  the  Occident)  as  practically  unimport- 
ant, admits  the  thorough  and  comprehensive  grasp  that 
the  great  Apologist  had  of  Orthodox  doctrine.* 

His  views  on  morality — with  due  allowance  of  course 
for  his  rigoristic  attitude  both  during  and  after  his 
Catholic  period — are  as  to  their  importance  in  determin- 
ing the  early  Christian  concept  of  mortal  sin  in  propor- 
tion to  the  preeminence  and  ttiorough  grasp  of  his  mind. 
It  is  to  be  expected  that  a  matter  of  so  vast  practical  im- 
port as  the  distinction  between  mortal  and  venial  sin 
should  find  appropriate  allocation  in  TertuUian's  treat- 
ment of  moral  questions.  An  unbiased  investigation  of 
his  works  will  fully  meet  this  expectation. 

2  "History  of  Dogmas  "  Vol.  I,  p.  304,  St.  Louis,  1910. 

3  Bardenhewer,  "Geschichte  der  Altkirchlichen  Literatur,  Vol. 
II,  p.  386,  Freiburg,  i.  Br.  1914:  So  ticf  und  wahr  nun  auch  Ter- 
tullian manche  Momente  der  Glaubensueberlieferung  erfasst,  so 
scharf  und  klar  er  insbesondere  die  Bedingfungren  und  Gesetze  alles 
theologischen  Forschens  ausgesprochen  hat,  auf  die  spaetere  Thc- 
ologie  des  Abendlandes — und  das  Morgenland  kommt  ueberhaupt 
nicht  in  Betracht— hat  er  nur  verschwindend  geringen  Einfluss 
erlangt.  Er  ist  nun  einmal  kein  Mann  der  Kirche  gewesen.— Op. 
cit.,  p.  389:  Augustinus  konnte  die  Anschauungen  seines  altea 
Landsmannes   einlaesslicher   rechfertigen   und   hie   und   da   auch 

schaerfer  fassen;  aber  zu  aendern  brauchte  er  dieselben  nicht. 


INTRODUCTION  iii 

If  in  several  places  we  cover  well-known  territory  in 
Tertullianic  lore  we  do  so  with  the  express  purpose  of 
shaping  results  and  views  of  others  for  the  particular 
aim  of  this  study. 

The  investigation  is  based  on  the  texts  of  Migne, 
Funk,  Oehler,  de  LabrioUe,  Reifferscheid-Wissowa,  for 
the  respective  documents.  Other  collections  or  editions 
will  be  noted  in  the  remarks.  The  English  translation 
of  the  passages  quoted  is  taken,  as  a  rule,  from  the  Ante- 
Nicene  Fathers. 

The  patristic  documents  are  to  be  considered  in  their 
chronological  order — unless  otherwise  indicated — ^the 
certain  or  most  probable  date  of  their  appearance,  as 
given  by  Bardenhewer,  Funk,  or  D'Ales,  being  the  guid- 
ing rule  in  placing  them  in  their  proper  sequence. 

The  authors  and  the  documents  are  to  be  considered 
aeparately  since  the  nature  and  purpose  of  this  study  ob- 
viously demands  the  method  of  separate  investigation 
for  the  sake  of  thoroughness  and  convenient  presenta- 
tion. 


iv  ABBREVIATIONS 

ABBREVIATIONS. 

Kgau, — Kirchengeschiehtliche  Abhandlungen  und  XJn^ 
tersuchungen. 
Pa., . — Patres  ApostoUci, 
Tq,    — Tkeologische  Quartalschrift, 
Zkt, — Zeitschrift  fuer  katholische  Theologie, 
Tu,    — Texte  und  Untersuchungen. 
Anf,  — Ante-Nicene  Fathers* 

(TERTULLIAN'S  WRITINGS) 

NaL'—cd  Nationes,  ApoL — Apologeticum.  Test 
Anim,  De  testimonio  animae.  SpecL — De  spectacidis. 
Adv,  Marc. — Adversus  Marctonem.  Praesc.  Haer. — De 
praescriptione  haereticorum.  Orat.  De  oratione.  Bapt. 
— Z>6  haptismo.  Pat. — De  patientia.  Paen. —  De 
paenitentia.  Cvlt.  Fern. — De  cuitu  feminarum.  Ux. — 
ad  XJxorem.  Herm. — Adversus  Hermogenem.  Jud. — 
Adversus  Jv^daeos.  Virg.  Vel. — De  virginibus  velandis. 
Pall. — De  pallio.  Vol. — Adversus  VaZentinianos.  Anim. 
— De  anima.  Cam.  Christi. — De  came  Christi.  Res. 
Cam.  De  resurrectione  camis.  Exh.  Cast. — De  exhortor- 
Hone  castitatis.  Cor. — De  corona.  Scorp. — Scorpiace. 
Idol. — De  idololatria.  Scap. — Ad  Scapvlam.  Fug.  in 
Pers. — De  fuga  in  persecutione.  Prax. — Adversus 
Praxeam.  Monog. — De  Monogamia.  Jej. — De  jejunio. 
Pud. — De  Pudidtia. 


FIRST  PART 

Authors  and  Documents  of  the  Pre-Tertullianic  Period. 


CHAPTER  I. 
THE  TEACHING  OF  THE  TWELVE  APOSTLES. " 

The  first  extra-canonical  compendium  of  Christian 
Morality^  is  the  Didache  (between  80  and  100  A.  D.). 
The  document  presents  a  practical  catecheticaP  concept 
of  grevious  sin  in  a  manner  that,  no  doubt,  made  the 
matter  of  instruction  intelligible  to  the  illiterate  convert 
to  Christianity  and  still  appealed  in  its  logical  simplicity 
to  the  better  educated  who  had  found  their  way  into  the 
Faith  of  Christ.  The  Scripture-like  clearness  and  di- 
rectness with  which  moral  laws,  counsels  of  perfection, 
and  ecclesiastical  regulations  are  placed  before  us  is  not 
a  negligible  consideration  in  assigning  the  document  to 
the  Apostolic  Period. 

In  the  first  sentence  of  the  opening  chapter  our  minds 
are  prepared  for  the  understanding  of  grievous  moral 
transgression.  "There  are  two  ways,  one  of  life  and  one 
of  death;  but  there  is  a  great  difference  between  these 
two  ways."^  The  "great  difference"  is  shown  in  the  con- 
trast between  the  positive  and  the  negative  precepts 
(chapters  I-IV)  on  the  one  hand  and  the  list  of  trans- 
gressions (chap.  V)  on  the  other. 

The  precepts  of  the  first  chapter,  taken  mostly  word 
for  word  from  Scripture,  do  not  demand  our  attention 
so  much  in  this  study  as  do  the  commandments,  mostly 
negative,  of  the  second  chapter.  These  are  to  a  great 
extent  of  Scriptural  origin,  also.  Murder,  various  sins 
of  the  flesh,  theft,  magic,  witchcraft,  infanticide,  abor- 
tion, mentioned  in  the  order  given,  are  followed  by  cove- 

1  Harnack,  "Tu."  II,  p.  37- 

2  Holtzmann,  "Die  Katechese  der  alten  Kirche,"  p.  lOO.  Cf. 
Schlecht,  "Doctrina  XII  Apostolorum,"p.  6. 

3  "Did."  I,  I.  The  very  adaptable  concept  of  "ways"  occurs 
frequently  in  Sacred  Scripture  e.  g.,  the  way  of  the  Lord,  the  ways 
of  men.  The  ways  of  life  and  death  are  mentioned  in  "Jer."  21,  8. 
Cf.  "Baruch  4,  i-,  "Prov."  12.28.,  "Matt."  7,  i3  :i4-  "Pa."  p.  3— Tay- 
lor's Iselin's  and  Harnack's  views  of  the  "two  ways"  are  treated 
extensively  in  "Kgau,"  II,  p.  137,  ss. 

3 


4  THE  l^CIfmG;CF  THE  TWELVE  APOSTLES 

tousness,  swearing,  false  witnessing,  evil  speech,  and 
other  sins  that  are  less  grievous  than  the  preceding.  To 
the  difference  in  degree  of  grievousness  no  special  clause 
of  the  chapter  calls  our  attention,  but  the  order  in  which 
the  sins  are  mentioned  seems  a  fair  criterion  for  judg- 
ing the  relative  amount  of  guilt. 

The  criterion  of  sequence  should  not  be  urged  to  the 
minutest  detail.  Theft  and  magic,  for  instance,  are 
mentioned  after  murder  but  before  poisoning,  infanti- 
cide, and  abortion,  whereas  they  should  quite  naturally 
be  classed  after  the  latter  group.  There  is  no  textual 
solution  of  this  apparent  discrepancy  of  sequence.  It  is 
most  probable  that  the  group  of  magic,  witchcraft,*  in- 
fanticide, and  abortion  was  added  here  to  the  enumera- 
tion of  the  fifth,  sixth,  and  the  seventh  commandments 
without  any  further  purpose  than  that  of  comprehen- 
siveness. The  mention  of  pederasty  and  fornication 
immediately  after  adultery  seems  to  put  special  stress  on 
the  prohibition  of  pederasty  because  of  its  prevalence, 
and  of  fornication  because  of  the  quite  common  error 
among  the  gentiles  concerning  the  illicitness  of  this  vice.^ 

The  commandment  of  Exodus  XX:  17,  not  given  in  its 
Scriptural  sequence,  serves  as  an  elucidation  to  the 
seventh  commandment  with  various  directly  or  indirect- 
ly connected  species  of  sin :  perjury,  false  witnessing, 
evil  speech,^  mindfulness  of  injuries  and  duplicity  in 
mind  and  in  speech. 

There  seems  to  be  no  doubt  that  the  sins  thus  far  men- 
tioned are  considered  grievous  transgressions  of  the 
moral  law  since  the  last  mentioned,  duplicity  of  tongue, 
while  evidently  a  sin  less  grievous  than  perjury,  is 
nevertheless  described  as  a  "snare  of  death".^  Duplicity 
is  the  only  sin  in  the  second  chapter  to  which  the  reason 


4  <f>aptmKevGra^    signifies  the  magic  arts:  poisoning  and  incan- 
tation.   Thus  Funk,  "Pa."  in  loc.  p.  8. 

5  "Cursus    Scripturae    Sacrae."    "Comment,    in    I    Cor.,   p.    147. 
Cornely,  Paris,  1890. 

6  Cf.  "Matth."  5 :22. 

7  "Prov."  14,  27,  also  21,  6.    Duplicity  of  speech  and  a  pari  of 
mind  means  apparently  a  deceitful,  hypocritical  character. 


THE  TEACHING  OF  THE  TWELVE  APOSTLES  5 

of  its  grievousness  is  added — as  if  to  do  away  with  a  pos- 
sible doubt  concerning  the  amount  of  guilt  attached  to 
a  transgression  so  far  down  on  the  list  of  sins.  We  may 
conclude  with  some  probability  that  the  sin  of  menda- 
city,® belonging  to  a  different  category  and  forbidden  in 
a  clause  separate  from  that  containing  the  condemnation 
of  duplicity,  is  not  of  a  grave  nature,  especially  since  it 
is  logically  and  grammatically  connected  with  "vain  and 
empty  speech",^  sins  of  a  weak  character.  A  brief  re- 
capitulation, in  a  varied  form,^^  of  the  sins  mentioned, 
with  a  few  words  concerning  hatred  and  love  and  prayer 
conclude  the  second  chapter. 

From  the  preceding  remarks  we  gather  that  in  the 
list  of  transgressions  under  consideration  there  seems 
to  be  a  line  drawn  between  the  sins  of  chapter  II  verses 
1  to  4  and  the  sermo  mendax  et  inanis  of  verse  5.  The 
textual  evidence,  therefore,  seems  to  imply  a  distinction 
between  transgression  of  a  grave  nature,  the  last  of 
which  is  positively  accentuated  as  a  snare  of  death,  and 
the  faults  of  a  light  nature,  or  faults  of  a  weak  character. 

The  supposition  of  a  distinction  between  grievous  and 
non-grievous  sins  in  the  important  enumeration  of  the 
second  chapter  is  well  supported  by  the  fact  that  dupli- 
city is  mentioned  among  the  sins  of  the  via  mortis 
(chapter  V) ,  whereas  mendacity,^^  as  such,  is  not.  True, 
the  amatores  mendacii  are  among  the  persons  travelling 
in  the  via  mortis,  but  the  qualifying  word  amatores,  the 
preceding  expression  osores  veritatis,  and,  in  general, 
the  concomitant  transgressions,  sufficiently  show  that  in 
chapter  V  we  are  dealing  with  sins  of  a  serious  nature. 

The  sources  of  murder,  fornication,  adultery,  idolatry, 
theft,  and  blasphemy  are  enumerated  in  chapter  III. 
Anger  is  mentioned  as  the  source  of  murder,  but  it  is  not 
given  as  a  grievous  sin  in  chapterV.  Concupiscence,^^ 
however,  the  source  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,  is  listed  as 

8  "Did."  II,  5- 

9  "Ibid."  II,  5. 

10  Cf.  Noldin,  "Summa  Theol.  Moral."  II.  Innsbruck,  nth  ed., 
1914,  p.  650. 

11  In  the  sense  of  evil  desire,  "Matth."  5:28. 


6  ,THE  TEACHING  OF  THE  TWELVE  APOSTLES 

belonging  to  the  via  mortis.  The  various  kinds  of  magic, 
leading  to  idolatry,  have  their  place  under  the  generic 
term  magiae  in  Chapter  V.  The  nature  of  lying,  given 
in  III,  6  as  one  of  the  sources  of  theft  has  been  sufficient- 
ly dwelt  upon  in  the  preceding  paragraph.  The  fact  that 
it  is  treated  as  the  source  of  a  serious  wrong,  that  is,  of 
theft,  does  not  argue  against  the  statement  that  it  is  of 
a  non-grievous  nature,  since  anger,  contextually  shown 
to  be  a  non-grievous  sin,  is  likewise  the  source  of  a 
grievous  transgression,  that  is,  of  murder. 

Blasphemy  originates  with  murmuring,!^  that  is,  most 
probably,  a  dissatisfaction  with  the  Church  or  its  laws. 
This  source  does  not  seem  to  be  specifically  or  even  gen- 
erally listed  in  the  via  mortis  chapter,  and,  therefore, 
may  be  considered  a  minor  fault.  The  immediate  con- 
text supports  the  conclusion  that  murmuring  can  well  be 
classified  as  a  lack  of  meekness  or  as  a  mild  form  of  in- 
solence. 

The  canon  of  contextual  comparison  brings  out  the 
fact  that  the  Didache  distinguishes  with  consistency 
along  plainly  discernible  lines  between  faults  of  a  grave 
nature  and  faults  of  a  light  nature.  Sermo  mendax  is 
distinguished  from  the  sermo  of  the  osores  veritatis  and 
the  amatores  mendacii;  proneness  to  anger  and  murmur- 
ing are  distinguished  from  the  sins  of  those,  a  quibis 
longe  ahest  mansuetudo  et  patientia.^^  The  concept  of 
mortal  sin  in  its  practical  application  and  in  its  extent 
was  apparently  not  a  vague  and  unsettled  matter. 

The  conclusion  of  the  fourth  chapter  contains  the 
much  discussed  confessions  of  sins.^*  It  is  not  the  pur- 
pose of  the  present  dissertation  to  enter  upon  the  ques- 
tion as  to  what  is  precisely  meant  here  by  confession, 
what  sins  are  to  be  confessed,  and  what  the  conscientia 

12  "Did."  111:6.  yoyyvgos.    Cf.  "Concordance  to  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment."   Molton  and  Geden- 

13  "Did."V.2. 

14  "Die  Suendenvergebung  in   der   Didache."    Weisz   in  "Tq.," 
1915,  P-  "3  ss. 


THE  TEACHING  OF  THE  TWELVE  APOSTLES  7 

mala^^  comprehends.  But  from  the  brief  consideration 
we  have  thus  far  given  to  the  wording  of  the  Didache  we 
may  conclude  that  the  method  of  expression  used  in  the 
last  few  lines  of  chapter  IV  concerning  confession  in 
ecclesia  need  not  be  subjected  to  textual  reconstruction. 

The  fifth  chapter  of  the  Didache  is  of  importance  for 
the  present  investigation  in  so  far  as  it  contributes  more 
definite  elements  to  the  concept  of  grievous  sin. 

The  nature  of  grievous  transgression  is  described  at 
the  outset  as  "full  of  curse".^®  This  description  removes 
the  doubt  that  could  arise  from  a  one-sided  interpreta- 
tion of  the  term  via  mortis.  For  via  mortis  could  be  ex- 
plained in  the  sense  of  a  way  leading  to  death  ultimately 
without  implying  the  existing  serious  state  of  those  who 
are  travelling  thereon. 

Then  follows  the  long  list^^  of  mortal  sins,  sins  "full 
of  curse",  forty-one  in  number.  Although  many  of  the 
sins  are  mentioned  in  the  plural,  we  would  not  be  justi- 
fied in  concluding  that  therefore  frequently  repeated 
acts,  or  better  said,  the  state  of  sinfulness  resulting 
from  such  acts,  is  alone  considered  grievous.  The 
term  "full  of  curse"  comprehends  apparently  the  indivi- 
dual act.  Sins  of  deed,  of  word  (e.  g.  turpiloquium, 
falsa  testimonia)  and  of  thought  (e.  g.,  concupiscentia, 
invidia)  are  on  the  list.  Not  only  sinful  acts,  but  also 
sinful  dispositions  receive  due  consideration. 

Murder  and  sins  of  the  flesh,  theft  and  idolatry  lead 
the  list.  False  witnessing,  deceit,  pride,  avarice,  filthy 
talking  and  a  few  other  vices  complete  the  first  division, 
all  the  sins  of  which  are  given  in  the  form  of  the  noun- 
name  of  the  sin.  i 

In  the  second  division  of  the  list  we  find  the  sinful  acts 
of  those  who  are  travelling  on  the  way  of  death.  The 
sins  are  mentioned  in  the  noun-name  or  its  equivalent 
denoting  the  person  of  sinners.     "Persecutors  of  the 

15  "Did."  IV:i4. 

16  "Did."  V:i. 

17  Cf.  "The  Irish  Theol.  Quarterly,"  p.  23,  Jan.,  1917.  "The  Di- 
dache" by  the  Rev.  J.  J.  McNamee. 


3  THE  TEACHING  OF  THE  TWELVE  APOSTLES 

good,"  "persons  hating  truth",  "loving  a  lie",  "those  who 
love  vain  things,"  are  examples  of  the  method  in  which 
the  list  of  sins  in  the  second  division  is  written.  Social 
sins  receive  a  good  share  of  attention.  Persons  who  do 
not  recognize  the  reward  of  justice,  who  have  no  pity 
for  the  poor  man,  who  labor  not  for  the  down-trodden, 
who  turn  away  the  needy,  who  oppress  the  afflicted,  then 
the  advocates  of  the  rich,  the  unjust  judges  of  the 
poor, — all  these  are  on  the  way  that  is  cursed.  Abor- 
tionists and  infanticides  are  also  mentioned. 

The  field  of  grievous  sins  is  quite  well  covered  by  the 
long  list  of  the  chapter  just  considered.  The  words  of 
the  Didache  are  addressed  to  adults  only,  since  obedience 
of  children  towards  their  parents  is  nowhere  mentioned. 
Servants  or  slaves  are  told  to  obey  their  masters  in 
chapter  IV,  10,  which  verse,  incidentally,  furnishes 
matter  for  reflection  on  the  equality  of  all  men  before 
God. 

No  mention  is  made  in  this  list  of  those  who  neglect  to 
fulfill  certain  counsels  which  at  first  sight  seem  to  be  pre- 
cepts, for  instance:  "If  one  impress  thee  for  one  mile, 
go  with  him  two"  or,  "If  one  take  away  thy  cloak,  give 
him  also  they  coat."^^  The  following  passage  offers  a 
plausible  solution :  "If  thou  art  able  to  bear  all  the  yoke 
of  the  Lord,  thou  wilt  be  perfect;  but  if  thou  art  not 
able,  what  thou  art  able  that  do".^^ 

The  quotation  concerning  the  irremissible  sin^^  pre- 
sents the  same  difficulty  as  Matt.  12 :21 :  "Every  sin  and 
blasphemy  shall  be  forgiven  men,  but  the  blasphemy  of 
the  spirit  shall  not  be  forgiven."^!  That  the  irremissible 
sin  refers  most  probably  to  a  continued  disposition,  or 
state,  of  moral  obduracy  as  exemplified  in  the  Pharisees 
and  the  Scribes,  whom  the  context  shows  to  be  guilty  of 
that  sin,  we  may  deduce  from  the  fact  that  Mark  quali- 
fies the  sin  as  an  eternal  one.  The  Didache  gives  this 
Scriptural  view  no  new  version,  hence  the  concept  of 


i8    "Did."  1 :4  of  Scriptural  origin.    Cf.  "Matth."  5 :40-4i. 

19  "Did."  VI  :2.  Funk  "Pa."  in  loc.  refers  "jugum"  to  "Did." 
1:3-6.  However,  "do  what  thou  art  able"  would  be  ill  applied  to 
"love  of  enemy." 

20  "Did."  XI 7. 

21  Cf.  also  "Mk."  3:28-29.    "Lk.."  12:10.  (I  "John"  5:16?) 


THE  TEACHING  OF  THE  TWELVE  APOSTLES  9 

mortal  sin  is  not  qualified  by  the  supposedly  new  element 
of  irremissibility. 

Enemies  must  be  reconciled  before  the  eucharistic  sac- 
rifice takes  place.^^  That  there  is  question  here  of  seri- 
ous sin  against  charity  cannot  be  demonstrated.^^  "That 
your  sacrifice  be  not  profaned"  can  easily  be  interpreted 
to  exclude  all  faults  against  charity,  especially  since  the 
divine  service  was  considered  a  "love  feast". 

One  more  passage  of  the  Didache  is,  perhaps,  of  some 
value  for  our  present  study.  "To  everyone  that  acts 
amiss  against  another,  let  no  one  speak,  nor  let  him  hear 
ought  from  you  until  he  repent."^*  The  expression  "acts 
amiss"  has  apparently  the  meaning  of  erring  in  faith, 
swerving  from  the  truth.^^  It  is  most  likely  a  question  of 
the  sin  of  heresy,  which  would  entail  excommunication 
for  the  guilty  one.  Funk  seems  to  interpret  the  passage 
in  connection  with  the  preceding  words:  "Reprove  one 
another  not  in  anger,  but  in  peace,  as  you  have  it  in  the 
Gospel".  He  considers  avoiding  the  delinquent  as  the 
last  means  of  bringing  such  a  brother  to  the  realization 
of  his  transgression.  The  context,  however,  and  the 
Scriptural  use  of  acrrox^*^  apparently  do  not  warrant 
Funk's  interpretation.^^ 

The  general  impression  that  we  gain  from  the  Didache 
as  to  the  concept  of  grievous  sin  is  that  of  a  precision 
which  we  would  not  expect  in  so  early  a  writing.  The 
distinction  between  the  degrees  of  guilt,  the  long  and 
exact  list  of  mortal  sins,  the  unmistakable  characteriza- 
tion of  the  sins  on  this  list  as  the  "way  of  death",  "full 
of  curse",  the  consistency,  brevity  and  clearness  with 
which  the  sins  are  placed  before  us — all  this  deserves 
indeed  the  praise  bestowed  on  the  Didache  by  one  of  the 
foremost  modern  non-Catholic  scholars  of  Christian 
antiquity,  when  in  speaking  of  its  arrangement  and  con- 
tents he  says  that  "it  attains  its  purpose  completely", 
part  of  which  purpose  is  to  sum  up  "in  the  form  of  a 
compendium  the  moral  precepts  of  the  Gospel"." 

22  "Did."  XIV.  2.    Cf.  "Matth."  5 :23-24. 

23  "Cum  amico  suo." 

24  "Did."  XV  :3. 

25  Cf.  I  "Tim."  6:6-21;  II  "Tim."  2:18. 

26  Cf.  Funk  "Pa."  in  loc,  p.  35. 

27  A.  Harnack,  "Tu."  II,  p.  37. 


10  ^T.  BARNABAS  AND  ST.  CLEMENT  OF  ROME 

CHAPTER  11. 
ST.  BARNABAS  AND  ST.  CLEMENT  OF  ROME. 

The  date  of  this  epistle  of  St.  Barnabas  is  a  matter  of 
conjecture.  It  is  generally  accepted  that  the  letter  was 
not  written  before  70  nor  after  137.  Funk  is  of  the 
opinion  that  it  appeared  during  the  reign  of  Nerva  96-98 
or  shortly  after.^  Barnabas  is  most  probably  not  the 
author  of  the  epistle,  but  it  had  been  so  generally  attri- 
buted to  him  that  it  still  retains  his  name.  At  all  events, 
it  reflects  some  views  of  the  Christians  in  the  half -cen- 
tury following  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  in  so  far 
its  texts  pertaining  to  grievous  sin  can  be  of  value  for 
the  present  study. 

The  effect  which  grievous  sin  has  on  the  soul  is  well 
stated  in  the  opening  chapter  of  the  Epistle.  The  author 
obviously  took  pains  to  impress  his  views  on  his  read- 
ers.2  The  quotation  from  Zach.  8:17,^  is  soon  followed 
by  the  admonition  to  be  very  careful  concerning  salva- 
tion "lest  the  evil  one  having  made  his  entrance  by  de- 
ceit, should  hurl  us  forth  from  life".*  That  by  "life" 
the  author  has  reference  to  the  very  essence  of  salvation 
is  quite  apparent  from  the  immediate  context^  and  from 
the  first  chapter,  in  which  "the  hope  of  life"  is  described 
as  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  our  faith.  Evil 
thoughts,  therefore,  in  the  sense  of  hatred  and  of  false 
oaths  as  the  external  means  of  satisfying  that  hatred  are 
branded  as  grievous.  The  nature  of  this  grievousness  is 
best  shown  by  its  result,  namely,  the  privation  of  "the 
hope  of  life",  which  may  be  easily  understood  by  infer- 

1  "Kgau,"  II,  p.  Tj  ss. 

2  "Epist.  Barn."  I  passim,  II  :9,  lo. 

3  "Let   none   of  you  imagine   evil  in   your   hearts   against   his 
friend;  and  love  not  a  false  oath." 

4  II:io. 

5  Care  concerning  our  salvation. 


ST.  BARNABAS  AND  ST.  CLEMENT  OF  ROME  11 

ence  from  Titus  I ;  2,  III ;  7,  to  be  the  privation  of  sancti- 
fying grace.® 

The  element  of  human  frailty  in  trying  to  fulfill  the 
commandments  of  God  is  taken  into  account  by  the 
Epistle  as  much  as  it  is  by  the  Didache.^  The  readers 
are  advised  to  do  what  lies  in  their  power  to  avoid  sin. 

"As  much  as  in  us  lies,  let  us  meditate  upon  the  fear 
of  God,  and  let  us  keep  his  commandments,  that  we  may 
rejoice  in  his  justifications."*  And  a  few  sentences 
further  on  we  read:  "Take  heed  lest  resting  at  our 
ease. .  .we  should  fall  asleep  in  our  sins,  and  the  wicked 
prince,  acquiring  power  over  us  should  thrust  us  away 
from  the  kingdom  of  the  Lord."^  These  few  passages  do 
not  permit  us  to  share  the  conviction  of  those  who  lay 
so  much  stress  on  the  perfect  life  of  the  early  Christian 
as  to  exclude  reconciliatory  penance. 

The  justice  of  punishment  for  sin  is  based  on  the 
knowledge  that  the  sinner  has  of  the  way  of  righteous- 
ness. "That  man  perishes  justly,  who,  having  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  way  of  righteousness,  rushes  off  into  the  way 
of  darkness".^"  This  is  the  first  explicit  mention  in  the 
early  writings  of  moral  cognition  as  a  prerequisite  to  the 
imputability  of  grievous  transgression.  The  function- 
ing of  the  will  is  not  mentioned  in  so  explicit  terms,  but 
we  may  easily  deduce  from  the  term  eavroi/  diro-aw-exa  that 
the  consent  is  of  as  much  importance  as  knowledge. 

Several  grievous  transgressions  are  considered  in  alle- 
gorical explanations'^  of  the  Mosaic  law  concerning  the 
prohibition  of  certain  kinds  of  food,'^  but  they  do  not 

6  "Titus"  3:7:  "That,  being  justified  by  His  grace,  we  may  be 
heirs,  according  to  hope  of  life  everlasting." 

7  "Did."  VI  :2,  3;  XIV  :i,  2;  XV 13. 

8  "Epist.  Barn."  IV:ii. 

9  IV:i3. 

ID  V:4.  Funk  interprets  "rushing  off  into  the  way  of  dark- 
ness" as  conversion  to  the  Jewish  ceremonies.  The  "way  of 
darkness"  of  chapters  XVIII  and  XX  does  not  support  Funk's  view. 
Moreover,    iavrov  a7r(XTvv€\€i    has  most  probably  the  meaning  of 

letting  one's  self  go  completely  in  the  face  of  temptation  (retia). 

11  X. 

12  "Lev."  11;  "Deut."  14. 


12  ST.  BARNABAS  AND  ST.  CLEMENT  OF  ROME 

claim  our  attention  as  much  as  chapters  XVIII,  XIX 
and  XX.  These  are  quite  similar  to  the  first  five  chap- 
ters of  the  Didache. 

As  in  the  Didache,  the  figure  of  the  two  ways  is 
chosen  to  impart  more  strikingly  the  teaching  of  moral- 
ity. While  the  Didache  calls  one  way  that  of  life  and  the 
other  that  of  death,  the  Epistle  changes  the  names  but 
not  the  substance  of  the  concept.  "The  way  of  light" 
and  "the  way  of  darkness"  are  the  title  descriptions  used 
by  the  author  of  the  Epistle. 

In  chapter  XIX  "the  way  of  light"  adds  the  command- 
ment, not  found  in  the  Didache,  forbidding  the  profane 
use  of  God's  name. 

The  way  of  darkness  receives  an  additional  descrip- 
tion in  the  Epistle,  which  is  quite  explicit.  It  is  de- 
scribed as  being  "full  of  cursing",  as  the  way  of  eternal 
death  with  punishment,  on  which  way  are  the  trans- 
gressions that  cause  the  soul  of  man  to  be  lost.^^  No 
doubt  is  left  in  the  mind  of  the  reader  that  the  sins  in 
the  list  of  chapter  XX  are  deadly.  The  order  of  se- 
quence is  different  from  that  of  the  Didache,  but  the  sins 
mentioned  are  practically  the  same. 

The  Epistle  has  added  some  new  elements  to  the  con- 
cept of  mortal  sin.  Knowledge  and  consent  as  prere- 
quisites, human  frailty  as  a  mitigating  circumstance,  the 
privation  of  the  spes  vitae  and  eternal  death  with 
punishment  as  the  effects  of  serious  transgressions  are 
results  sufficiently  well  supported  by  a  study  of  the  text. 
Whatever  the  "lack  of  literary  ability"  in  the  author  of 
the  Barnabas  document  may  have  been,  so  much  must  be 
said  in  his  favor,  that  he  had  a  view  of  mortal  sin  which 
as  to  correctness  of  concept  would  do  ample  justice  to 
our  demands  from  later  writers  on  morality. 

A.    First  letter  of  Clement  to  the  Corinthians, 

The  Barnabas  document  was  written — probably — for 
the  converts  from  Judaism  and  Paganism  who  lived  in 

13    XX  :i. 


ST.  BARNABAS  AND  ST.  CLEMENT  OF  ROME  13 

the  vicinity  of  Alexandria.  The  letters  of  Clement  were 
addressed  to  the  Christians  at  Corinth.  The  Didache  is 
of  the  nature  of  an  encyclical,  the  Barnabas  and  Clem- 
entine letters  have  a  more  restricted  character. 

The  first  Clementine  document  was  written  about  the 
end  of  the  first  century  by  Clement  I.^* 

In  the  praise  bestowed'^  on  the  Corinthians  for  their 
faith  and  virtue  before  schism  had  torn  their  ranks  we 
meet  with  a  difficulty  concerning  the  concept  of  sin.  The 
expression  "involuntary  transgressions"^®  is  used,  which 
would  imply  that  the  faithful  and  virtuous  Corinthians 
and,  perhaps,  Clement  himself,  had  a  wrong  view  of  the 
conditions  required  for  imputability  of  sin.  To  ask  par- 
don for  involuntary  transgressions  is  an  inconsistency 
which  we  would  not  impute  to  the  author  of  this 
thorough  document. 

If  we  remember,  however,  that  the  chapter  in  which 
this  term  occurs  is  a  eulogy  on  the  well  ordered  life  of 
the  faithful  at  Corinth,  and  if  we  consider  that  the  im- 
mediate context  speaks  of  their  insatiable  desire  of  do- 
ing good  to  such  an  extent  that  they  besought  God  to  be 
merciful  to  them  for  merely  material  transgressions, 
the  difficulty  loses  its  force.  It  was,  therefore,  not  a  dis- 
torted, exaggerated  view  of  sin  which  the  Corinthians 
had,  but  rather  an  extreme  willingness  to  do  penance. 
The  expression,  when  correctly  adjusted,  created  the 
strong  presumption  that  the  nature  of  sin  was  well  un- 
derstood. 

The  sin  of  envy  with  its  long  train  of  consequences  is 
considered  at  length  in  several  chapters'^  in  a  manner 
that  leaves  no  doubt  as  to  its  grievousness.  The  Corin- 
thians, who  have  failed  in  their  duty  and  have  been  in- 

14  Cf.  Bardenhewer,  "Patrologie,"  p.  24. 

15  I  "Clem,  ad  Cor."  I,  II. 

16  *Akovtcs.  The  Latin  version  ignorantes  would  merely  shift 
the  difficulty,  while  the  Syriac  version  ix^vres  (willing,  pur- 
posely) would  solve  the  immediate  textual  difficulty,  but  render 
the  context  a  literary  contradiction.  "Akovtcs  would,  therefore, 
seem  the  preferable  reading. 

17  III-VI. 


14  ST.  BARNABAS  AND  ST.  CLEMENT  OF  ROME 

volved  in  "envy,  strife  and  vain  labors"  are  exhorted  to 
return  to  the  "glorious  and  venerable  rule  of  their  tradi- 
tion". The  exhortation  constitutes  the  contents  or  mo- 
tive of  a  considerable  part  of  the  latter.  Sedition,  pride, 
envy  and  other  closely  related  sins  should  be  laid  aside, 
and  recourse  be  had  to  "God's  compassions".^®  No  sign 
of  rigorism  is  found  in  Clement's  dealings  vi^ith  the  un- 
ruly Church  of  Corinth.  One  of  the  first  texts  quoted 
to  prove  the  possibility  of  repentance  is  from  Isaias 
1:18:  "If  your  sins  be  as  scarlet,  they  shall  be  made 
white  as  snow,  and  if  they  be  as  red  as  crimson,  they 
shall  be  as  white  as  wool."  There  are  numerous  other 
references  to  God's  mercy.^^  In  connection  herewith  the 
following  passage  is  of  importance.  "Whatever  sins  we 
have  committed,  seduced  by  a  servant  of  Satan,  let  us 
implore  the  remission  thereof  ."^^  The  statement  is  gen- 
eral as  to  the  persons  who  have  sinned  and  as  to  the  sins 
committed.  In  the  same  chapter  we  find  that  "it  is 
better  for  a  man  that  he  confess  his  sins  than  that  he 
harden  his  heart."^!  Whatever  the  nature  of  this  con- 
fession, it  is  very  improbable  that  rigorism  concerning 
penance  after  baptism  could  have  held  sway  at  a  time 
when  so  mild  a  doctrine  as  the  one  implied  by  the  pas- 
sages just  quoted  was  expressed  by  the  Bishop  of  Rome. 

In  this  Clementine  Letter  we  find  sins  of  evil  desire 
forbidden.  "Let  us  forsake  the  impure  desires  after 
evil  deeds  that  we  may  be  protected  by  His  mercy  from 
the  judgment  to  come."^^ 

A  list  of  sins  is  found  in  this  document,  also.  We 
shall  be  numbered  among  the  elect  if  we  follow  "the  way 
of  truth  and  cast  away  from  us  all  injustice,  malice, 
avarice,  strife,  evil  practices  and  deceit,  whispering  and 
evil  speaking,  the  hatred  of  God,  pride,  haughtiness, 
vainglory  and  inhospitality"." 

i8    IX  :i. 

19  XVI,  XVIII. 

20  LI:i. 

21  LI  :3. 

it2    XXVIII  :i. 
23    XXXV  :5. 


ST.  BARNABAS  AND -ST.  CLEMENT  OP  ROME  15 

That  the  above  listed  sins  are  of  a  grievous  nature  is 
quite  evident  from  the  introductory  remark  concerning 
the  necessity  of  avoiding  the  transgressions  here  listed 
in  order  to  be  numbered  among  the  elect,  and  from  the 
sentence  following,  which,  moreover,  adds  an  element  to 
the  concept  of  sin  which  we  have  not  met  thus  far, 
namely,  cooperation.  "They  who  commit  these  (sins) 
are  hated  by  God,  not  however,  they  alone,  but  also  those 
who  give  their  approval."^* 

In  the  preceding  chapter^^  we  find  the  vices  opposed  to 
moderation,  to  humility  and  to  meekness  considered  as 
cursed  by  God.  Other  sins  or  vices — mainly  sins  of  the 
flesh— are  also  condemned  as  grievous  in  the  same  chap- 
ter. 

What  we  have  gathered  from  the  first  Clementine 
document  concerning  the  concept  of  sin  supports  with 
more  than  conjectural  probability  the  impression  that 
certain  sins  were  consistently  considered  grievous,  that 
the  nature  of  grievous  sin  was  such  as  to  deprive  the 
guilty  person  of  God's  friendship,  but  that  the  condition 
of  being  hated  by  God  was  not  an  unalterable  one ;  more- 
over, that  the  Church's  attitude  towards  seriously  de- 
linquent members  was  inf  erentially  not  that  of  rigorism, 
and  that  the  principle  of  cooperation  was  at  least  ele- 
mentarily recognized.  As  to  whether  this  document 
teaches  a  distinction  between  grievous  and  non-grievous 
sin,  we  could  not  answer  affirmatively  with  the  same  de- 
gree of  probability  with  which  we  have  asserted  the  pre- 
ceding conclusions.  The  expressions  in  which  Clement 
includes  himself  among  the  sinners^^  will  not  permit  us 
on  the  one  hand  to  judge  him  guilty  of  serious  trans- 
gression, nor  on  the  other  to  believe  him  free  from  all 
fault. 

We  would  be  inclined  to  say  that  the  document  consid- 
ers the  individual  transgression  as  grievously  sinful,  and 
not  merely  the  accumulation  of  violations.      The  use  of 


24  XXXV  :6. 

25  XXX. 

26  VII  :i;  LI:i. 


X 


16  ST.  BARNABAS  AND  ST.  CLEMENT  OF  ROME 

"all  injustice,  all  sedition",  "blameless",  "in  every  re- 
spect", seems  to  include  reference  to  individual  acts. 

B,  The  Second  Epistle  of  Clement  to  the  Corinth- 
ians,^'' 

This  document  contains  little  that  is  of  importance  for 
our  present  study.  It  is  the  first  homily — and  stress  is 
to  be  put  on  the  fact  that  it  is  a  homily.  No  clear  sup- 
port is  found  in  it  for  the  opinion  concerning  extreme 
rigorism  in  primitive  Christianity. 

This  world,  which  "preaches  adultery,  corruption,  av- 
arice, and  deceit",  is  inimical  to  the  next,  which  "re- 
nounces these  sins".^* 

A  rather  rigoristic  view  is  expressed  in  the  words: 
"Unless  we  keep  our  baptism  holy  and  undefiled,  with 
what  confidence  can  we  enter  the  palace  of  God?"^^  and 
in  the  words:  "Keep  they  flesh  chaste  and  thy  soul  un- 
defiled, that  ye  may  receive  eternal  life".^^  The  impres- 
sin  of  rigorism  weakens,  however,  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  the  document  is  an  exhortation  to  penance. 

The  following  texts  contain  quite  a  limitation  to  the 
strict  interpretation  we  would  feel  inclined  to  put  on  the 
homily.  "Let  us  not  be  dragged  away  by  worldly  re- 
sires,  but  let  us  attempt  to  make  advances  in  the  com- 
mandments of  the  Lord."^^  And  again :  "Let  us  not,  un- 
wise as  we  are,  be  affronted  and  sore  displeased,  if 
someone  admonishes  and  turns  us  from  iniquity  unto 
righteousness.  For  sometimes,  while  we  are  doing  evil, 
we  do  not  perceive  it  on  account  of  the  double-minded- 
ness  and  unbelief  that  is  in  our  breasts,  and  we  are 
darkened  in  our  understanding  by  our  vain  desires."^^ 

27  We  may  accept  Funk's  opinion  that  this  document — attri- 
buted to  Clement,  though  he  was  most  probably  not  the  author — 
was  written  in  the  first  half  of  the  second  century. 

28  II  "Clem."  ad  Cor.  VI 13,  4- 

29  VI  :9. 

30  VIII  :6. 

31  XVII  :3. 
22    XIX  ;2. 


ST.  IGNATIUS  AND  ST.  POLYCARP  17 

CHAPTER  III. 
ST.  IGNATIUS  AND  ST.  POLYCARP. 

The  documentary  evidence  that  St.  Ignatius  of 
Antioch  puts  forth  concerning  the  concept  of  mortal  sin 
bespeaks  the  mind  of  the  Oriental  Church  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  second  century.  A  saintly  and  learned 
disciple  of  the  apostles,  he  is  undoubtedly  an  authority 
on  their  doctrine. 

In  the  writings  of  St.  Ignatius  we  have  no  explicit 
statements  as  to  the  nature  of  grievous  transgression  of 
divine  law.  But  there  are  several  texts  that  show  quite 
conclusively  the  correct  concept  of  grievous  sin.  Op- 
position to  the  will  of  God  characterizes  the  sin  of  those 
who  are  against  the  accepted  doctrine  concerning  the 
grace  of  Christ.^  They  neglect  the  widow,  the  orphan, 
and  the  oppressed,  they  have  no  regard  for  charity. 
There  seems  to  be  question  in  Ad  Smyrnaeos  VI  concern- 
ing those  who  do  not  accept  the  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist. 
The  immediate  context  speaks  o±  those  who  abstain  from 
the  Eucharist  and  from  prayer.  Those  who  speak 
against  this  gift  of  God  die  in  their  disputes.  Funk 
takes  it  for  granted  that  Ignatius  is  here  treating  of 
heretics. 2 

The  argument  deducible  from  the  words  of  Ignatius 
for  the  remissibility  of  the  sin  of  heresy  has  strong  sup- 
port in  the  context.  In  his  letter  to  the  Ephesians  Igna- 
tius speaks  of  the  guilt  of  persons  who  corrupt  the  faith 
of  God  by  wicked  doctrines.^  If  the  corruptors  of  fami- 
lies* have  suffered  death,  how  much  more  deserving 
thereof  are  corruptors  of  doctrine?  The  Trallians  are 
told  to  avoid  the  "evil  off-shoots^  that  produce  death-bear- 


1  "Ad  Smyrnaeos"  VI.    The  shorter  version  is  used  in  this  and 
the  following  passages. 

2  "Pa."  p.  281,  in  loc. 

3  "Ad  Eph."  XVI  :2. 

4  "Ibid." 

5  Heresies. 


18  ST.  IGNATIUS  AND  ST.  POLYCARP 

ing  fruit,  whereof  if  anyone  tastes  he  immediately 
dies."^  Although  the  passage  is  figurative,  one  cannot 
seriously  doubt  the  meaning  the  author  wanted  to  im- 
part. There  are  few  passages  that  convey  so  well  the 
concept  of  spiritual  death  as  the  result  of  grievous 
offense. 

Ignatius  may  be  quoted  directly  to  show  that  fallen 
away  Christians  could  return  to  the  Church.  "As  many 
as  shall,  in  the  exercise  of  repentance,  return  into  the 
unity  of  the  Church,  these,  too,  shall  belong  to  God  that 
they  may  live  according  to  Jesus  Christ."^ 

That  the  sins  of  thought  were  also  given  consideration 
we  may  infer  from  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians.  "Our 
very  secrets  are  near  to  Him.  Let  us,  therefore,  do  all 
things  as  if  He  were  dwelling  in  us."^ 

St.  Polycarp  of  Smyrna,  in  his  letter  to  the  Philip- 
pians,  a  document  of  the  first  half  of  the  second  century, 
speaks  of  internal  sin:  "Nothing  is  hid  from  Him, 
neither  reasonings  nor  reflections,  nor  anyone  of  the  se- 
cret things  of  the  heart."^  He  exhorts  us  to  ask  God, 
the  all-seeing,  not  to  lead  us  into  temptation.^^ 

In  his  exhortation  to  the  presbyters  the  expression 
"bringing  back  the  erring"  ^^  suggests  the  remissibility  of 
heresy.  The  suggestion  is  confirmed  by  the  quite  gener- 
al petition :  "Let  us  return  to  the  doctrine  handed  down 
to  us  from  the  beginning."^^  He  asks  God  to  grant 
Valens  and  his  wife  true  repentance,^^  and  he  desires  to 
have  the  faithful  call  back  the  straying  and  suffering 
members.^* 


6  "Ad  Trail."  XI  :i. 

7  "Ad  Philad."  Ill  :2.  This  quotation  does  not  favor  Rauschen's 
statement.  The  Oriental  Church  about  and  before  the  year  200 
affords  us  but  two  expressions  in  regard  to  grievous  sins.  (Dio- 
nysius  of  Corinth,  Clement  of  Alexandria)  Rauschen,  "Eucharist 
and  Penance,"  p.  183. 

8  "Ad  Eph."  XV  :3. 

9  "Ad  Philipp."  IV  :3. 

10  "Ad  Philipp"  VII  :2. 

11  "Ad  Philipp."  VI  :i. 

12  "Ad  Philipp."  VII  :2. 

13  "Ad  Philipp."  XI  :4. 

14  "Ibid." 


ST.  IGNATIUS  AND  ST.  POLYCARP  19 

Heresy  is  not  considered  a  slight  matter  by  Polycarp, 
as  is  obvious  from  the  words:  "Whosoever  does  not  con- 
fess the  testimony  of  the  cross  is  of  the  devil."^^ 

Several  passages  from  the  Reliquiae  Presbyterorum  re- 
fer to  New  Testament  quotations  concerning  sin.  The 
reference  to  sinning  after  having  the  knowledge  of 
Christ  creates  the  impression  at  first  reading  that  cer- 
tain sins  are  irremissible.  This  difficulty  occurs  in  the 
first  fragment.  "We  should  not  be  proud,  nor  reprehend 
the  people  of  old  (David  and  Solomon  for  sinning),  we 
should  rather  fear  that  perhaps  after  possessing  knowl- 
edge of  Christ,  by  doing  a  thing  displeasing  to  God,  we 
no  longer  have  remission  of  sins,  but  are  excluded  from 
His  kingdom."^^  The  word  "perchance"  suffices  to  solve 
the  difficulty  for  there  is  no  reason  to  construct  the  act 
of  sin  and  its  irremissibility  as  logically  inseparable 
because  of  their  grammatical  unity.  The  "perchance" 
may  be  applied  to  the  '^remission  of  sins"  and  it  would 
then  argue  equally  well  against  the  interpretation  of 
rigorism. 

Besides  touching  upon  the  remissibility  of  sin  and  the 
wrong  of  internal  transgression,  this  chapter's  study  has 
shown  that  according  to  a  disciple  of  the  Apostles  oppo- 
sition to  the  will  of  God  by  a  grievous  sin — ^that  of  her- 
esy— causes  immediate  spiritual  death. 

15    "Ad  Philipp."  VII  :i. 

i6    "Fragment"  I  :ii.    Cf.  "Hebr."  10:26. 


20  THE  SHEPHERD  OF  HERMAS 

CHAPTER  IV. 
THE  SHEPHERD  OF  HERMAS. 

The  document  we  are  to  consider  in  this  chapter  dates 
from  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  It  is  generally 
accepted  that  the  brother  of  Pope  Pius  I  is  its  author. 
Irenaeus  in  Gall,  Tertullian  in  North  Africa,  Clement  in 
Alexandria,  and  the  Muratori  Fragment  in  Rome  give 
ample  proof  of  the  wide  circle  of  its  readers. 

The  popular  style,  the  ease  of  presentation,  the  naive 
of  many  questions  put  by  Hermas,  show  that  the  work 
was  primarily  intended  for  the  common  people.  It 
should,  therefore,  give  us  an  insight  into  the  concepts  of 
the  large  majority  of  Christians,  and  also  of  the  better 
educated  class  to  which  the  writer  probably  belonged.^ 

The  character  of  Hermas,  quite  consistently  portray- 
ed, suggests  the  conclusion  that  the  author  was  a  man  of 
more  than  ordinary  education.  We  are  not  prepared  to 
grant  that  his  knowledge  of  theology  was  thorough.  The 
apparent  lack  of  consistency  in  the  theological  views  of 
the  author  should  be  kept  in  mind  in  judging  the  value 
of  certain  passages  that  are  difficult,  perhaps  impossible, 
to  interpret. 

It  might  be  appropriate  to  offer  here  a  quotation  from 
D'Ales  concerning  "The  Shepherd  of  Hermas":  ''Ce 
n'est  pas  un  document  official;  mais  c'est  un  document 
prive  de  tres  haute  valeur,  parce  qu'il  reflete  avec  une 
grande  naivete  les  preoccupations  des  pasteurs  de 
VEglise  romaine  au  deuxieme  siecle  et  les  expedients  de 
leur  zele.  Egalement  soucieux  de  ne  jeter  aucun  pecheur 
dans  le  desespoir  et  de  n*autoriser  aucune  presomption, 
ces  pasteurs  ne  croyaient  pas  trahir  la  doctrine  en  la 
dispensant  avec  mesure  selon  les  hommes  et  les  circon- 
stances,  et  parfois  pratiquaient  assez  hardiment  la  re- 
striction mentale.     Telle  est  la  raison  derniere,  souvent 

I  The  Interpretation  of  the  Shepherd,  p.  542  in  "Biblical  and 
Theological  Studies." 


THE  SHEPHERD  OF  HERMAS  21 

meconnue,  de  certaines  particidarites  surprenantes  que 
presente  le  langage  d'Hermas."^  The  theory  here  pro- 
posed to  harmonize  the  inconsistencies  of  Hernias  would 
expose  the  "pastors  of  the  Roman  Church"  to  severe 
criticism.  It  is  difficult  to  accept  this  theory  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  Hermas  frequently  inculcates  simplicity 
and  truthfulness.  The  criterion  of  comparison  along 
general  lines  with  the  documents  that  immediately  pre- 
ceded or  followed  "The  Shepherd"  should  enable  us  to 
give  the  views  of  Hermas  their  proper  value. 

Hermas  speaks  of  the  nature  of  serious  sin  in  several 
places.  The  first  instance  is  in  connection  with  a  quota- 
tion from  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.^  "But  that  has 
saved  you,  that  you  did  not  depart  from  the  living 
God."*  Hermas  had  just  been  reproached  because  of  his 
carelessness  concerning  the  transgressions  of  his  family 
and  because  of  too  much  preoccupation  with  worldly 
matters.^  The  context  implies  that  Hermas  is  still  "sal- 
vus"  because  he  has  as  yet  done  nothing  that  would 
separate  him  from  God.  "Evil  desires  after  another's 
wife  or  husband  deliver  men  over  to  death."^  The  same 
concept  of  the  nature  of  grievous  sin  lies  in  the  words : 
"If  anyone  commit  this  wicked  deed  (adultery),  he 
works  death  for  himself."^  And  again:  "Among  such 
persons  (who  keep  the  commandments)  is  the  life  of  the 
Lord,  but  amongst  the  quarrelsome  and  transgressors, 
death."'  The  positive  form  "living  unto  God"  occurs 
frequently,  evidently  showing  by  inference  how  deep- 
rooted  was  the  thought  of  sin  as  the  death  of  the  soul. 

Whether  Hermas  and  the  people  his  type  represented 
had  a  definite  concept  of  the  distinction  between  great  and 
small  sins  cannot  be  satisfactorily  answered  from  the 
wording  of  the  text.    If  we  analyze  the  morality  views 

2  "L'Edit  de  Calliste,"  p.  112.    Cf.  also  Zkt.,"  1907,  p.  454- 

3  "Hebr."  3:12. 

4  "Vis."  lie  3:2. 

5  "Vis."  lie.  3:1- 

6  "Mand."  Xlle.  2. 

7  "Mand."  IVc.  i. 

8  "Mand."  VII  :5. 


22  THE  SHEPHERD  OF  HERMAS 

which  Hermas  brings  with  him  from  the  ranks  of  the 
common  people,  we  find  that  he  is  quite  astonished  to 
learn  that  evil  thoughts  are  sinful  at  all.  The  promin- 
ence that  is  given  the  correction  of  his  wrong  views  on 
the  nature  of  thought-sins  is  of  more  than  passing  signi- 
ficance. We  can  hardly  doubt  that  the  author  wished  to 
impress  his  readers  with  the  malice  of  interior  sins. 
There  must  have  been  a  serious  reason  for  this  conspicu- 
ous and  thorough  correction.  Hermas  distinguishes 
between  sins  of  thought  and  "perfect  sins",^  apparently 
sins  of  deed — after  he  has  been  corrected.  But  we  find 
no  sufficient  evidence  on  which  we  could  base  a  solid  dis- 
tinction between  mortal  sin  and  slight  transgression. 

Unchaste  thoughts,  as  stated  above,  are  to  be  consid- 
ered sinful.  The  very  introduction  to  "The  Shepherd" 
insinuates  that  they  are  to  be  at  least  a  part  of  the 
theme  which  the  author  has  set  himself.  The  anger  of 
God  is  upon  those  who  sin  by  unchaste  thought.^^  The 
clause  "qui  multiplicari  et  crescere  fecit"  seems  to  indi- 
cate the  ultimate  reason  why  God  is  angry  with  such 
sinners.  Unchaste  thoughts  would  work  untold  harm 
to  the  procreation  of  man.  Interior  transgression  is 
"indeed  a  great  sin.""  "Such  as  entertain  wicked 
thoughts  are  bringing  upon  themselves  death  and  cap- 
tivity."^2  Although  these  words  indicate  the  grievous- 
ness  of  sinful  thoughts,  they  are  not  in  full  accord  with 
a  concept  which  we  find  in  a  later  part  of  the  work.  The 
sin  of  desire  and  the  sin  of  deed  are  there  well  kept  dis- 
tinguished. The  sin  of  desire  is  called  a  great  sin — be- 
cause committed  by  a  servant  of  God,  but  the  sin  of  deed 
(adultery)  is  alone  mentioned  as  deserving  of  death.^^ 
It  is  impossible  to  argue  away  the  inconsistency  shown 
by  the  author  concerning  the  degree  of  guilt  in  sins  of 
thought. 

The  desire  of  a  wicked  deed  is  called  "abominable  in 

9  "Vis."  I,  c.  2:1. 

10  "Vis."  I,  c  1 :6. 

11  "Vis."  I,  c.  1 :8. 

12  "Ibid." 

13  "Mand."  IV,  c.  i  :2. 


THE  SHEPHERD  OF  HERMAS  23 

a  well  tried  spirit."^*  Evil  desires  that  "slay  the  ser- 
vants of  God**  comprehend,  however,  not  only  those 
against  chastity,  the  desire  after  "another's  wife  or  hus- 
band", but  also  those  "after  extravagance  and  many  use- 
less dainties  and  drinks  and  many  other  foolish  lux- 
uries/'i*^  The  latter  are  obviously  not  so  sinful  as  those 
against  chastity  but  are  still  mentioned  as  delivering  the 
transgressor  "up  to  death".  It  is  to  be  regretted  that 
no  other  distinction  was  made  in  the  enumeration  of  sin- 
ful desires  than  that  of  sequence.  Some  stress,  however, 
is  laid  on  the  first  mentioned:  "Foremost  of  all  is  the 
desire  after  another's  wife  or  husband."^^ 

Sins  committed  by  word  of  mouth  receive  frequent 
mention.  In  his  resentment  at  being  accused  of  having 
sinned,  Hermas  exclaims :  "When  spoke  I  an  unseeming- 
ly  word  to  you?"^^  The  thought  that  he  had  perhaps 
sinned  by  evil  desire,  did  not  enter  his  mind.  His  first 
query  concerned  that  sin  which  he  deemed  least  in  the 
category  of  wrongs.  That  he  had  not  been  much  con- 
cerned about  the  sinfulness  of  lying  is  quite  evident  from 
his  interesting  remark  upon  hearing  how  wrong  false- 
hood should  be  considered  by  a  servant  of  God :  "I  never 
spoke  a  true  word  in  my  life."^^  He  is  warned  to  "keep 
these  precepts  (i.  e.  those  that  he  had  just  received)  and 
from  this  time  forward"  to  speak  the  truth  at  all  times, 
if  he  wishes  to  obtain  life.  Falsehood  is  called  a  great 
wickedness  and  whosoever  departs  from  it  shall  "live  to 
God".'^  The  commandment  to  tell  the  truth  at  all  times 
is  quite  comprehensive,  and  includes  the  prohibition  of 
serious  sins  of  falsehood,  as  is  evident  from  other  pas- 
sages. Detraction  is  forbidden  with  special  stress,^^* 
false  witnessing  and  deceit  are  mentioned  with  other 
"evil  deeds","  such  as  robbery  and  theft. 


14 

"Vis."  I,  c.  2:4. 

IS 

and  16    "Mand."  XII  c, 

17 

"Vis."  I.  c.  I  :-7- 

18 

"Mand."  111:3. 

19 

"Mand."  111:5. 

20 

"Mand."  II:  i,  2,  3. 

21 

"Mand."  VIII  :5. 

24  THE  SHEPHERD  OF  HERMAS 

Carelessness  in  responsible  positions  is  condemned 
quite  forcibly.  Hernias  is  rebuked  for  not  having  warn- 
ed his  family  against  evil  and  for  having  allowed  his 
sons  to  be  corrupted.^" — Adultery  and  all  sins  of  the 
flesh  "that  are  similar  to  those  committed  by  the  Gen- 
tiles"'^ are  grievously  wrong  for  they  bring  death  to  the 
transgressors.^* 

The  indwelling  of  the  devil  in  anger^^  would  not  con- 
vincingly prove  that  serious  sin  is  meant  thereby,  since 
the  presence  of  the  devil  could  be  interpreted  as  mean- 
ing the  source  or  beginning  of  temptation  to  do  greater 
wrong.  Theft,  robbery,  avarice,  deceit,  vainglory, 
hypocrisy,  unlawful  revelling,  extravagance  of  riches 
and  other  sins,  or  vices,  are  mentioned  as  evil  deeds^*^  but 
in  so  general  a  manner  that  it  is  evidently  not  the  in- 
tention of  the  author  to  give  an  exact  or  even  an  ap- 
proximate valuation  of  their  malice,  but  merely  to  place 
before  the  faithful  some  sins,  from  which  enumeration 
they  could  easily  deduce  conclusions  as  to  the  attitude 
to  be  taken  towards  similar  faults." 

The  Shepherd  presents  a  difficulty  as  to  the  remissibi- 
lity  of  sin.  The  words  which  give  rise  to  the  difficulty 
are  found  in  the  Fourth  Mandate.  "Whosoever",  says 
the  angel  of  repentance,  "after  that  great  and  holy  call- 
ing tempted  by  the  devil,  has  fallen  into  sin,  has  one  op- 
portunity to  repent.  But  if  he  sin  again  and  repent  once 
more  his  repentance  will  be  of  no  avail ;  he  will  live  with 
difficulty."28 

From  this  it  appears  all  sins  committed  after  the 
great  and  holy  calling,  which  Clement  of  Alexandria 
interprets  as  meaning  baptism,^^  are  remissible,  at  least 

22  "Vis."  I,  c.  3:1. 

23  "Mand."  IV,  c.  1 19. 

24  "Mand."  IV,  c  i  :2. 

25  "Mand."  V,  c.  1 13. 

26  "Mand."  VIII  :5. 

27  Other  enumerations  of  sins  are  to  be  found  in  "Sim."  VIII, 
6-9-;  "Sim."  IX,  19-23,  26. 

28  "Mand."  IV,  c.  3 :6. 

29  "Strom."  II,  13:57.  Funk  interprets  "the  great  and  holy 
calling"  as  meaning  "time  of  grace,"  and  "one  opportunity"  as 
baptism.    "Kgau.,"  I,  p.  170. 


THE  SHEPHERD  OF  HERMAS  25 

once.  Even  if  we  accept  Funk's  opinion  that  "one  op- 
portunity" means  baptism,  the  clause  that  the  sinner 
would  "live  with  difficulty"  does  not  exclude  all  chance" 
of  remissibility,  as  Funk  himself  admits.  He  argues 
that  since  the  angel  of  repentance  absolutely  approved 
of  the  opinion  which  held  baptism  to  be  the  only  remis- 
sion of  sins,  it  would  have  been  a  flagrant  contradiction 
had  the  angel  admitted  another  remission  of  sins  after 
baptism.  To  Funk's  mind  there  is  no  doubt  about  the 
interpretation  given.  Rauschen  considers  Funk's  as- 
sumption impossible.^^  D'Ales  would  have  us  keep  in 
mind,  while  trying  to  explain  this  difficulty,  that  the 
angel  is  addressing  catechumens  and  baptized  Chris- 
tians. Different  language  had  to  be  employed  for  diff- 
erent classes.^^  Stufler  claims  that  the  time  granted  for 
the  second  penance  is  to  be  understood  relatively,  that  is, 
under  the  condition  that  the  end  of  the  world  was  soon 
to  come.^2  This  explanation  would  gain  in  plausibility, 
if  the  eschatological  view  expressed  in  the  context  could 
be  shown  to  be  of  a  definite  nature.  It  is  not  impossible 
that  the  author  was  inconsistent  or  at  least  unguarded  in 
his  utterances  on  the  doctrine  of  frequent  remission  of 
sin.  The  dogmatic  utterances  of  the  Church  will  not 
gain  in  strength  or  likelihood  by  a  too  far  fetched  de- 
fense of  non-vital  passages,  as  the  one  in  question. 

The  general  position  of  Stufler  and  his  defenders  on 
the  question  of  frequent  remission  of  sin  through  abso- 
lution granted  by  the  Church  in  the  early  centuries 
seems  quite  favored  by  the  texts  on  remissibility  of 
grievous  sin  which  have  thus  far  been  adduced.  "If,  as 
even  some  Catholic  Church  historians  contend,  the 
Church  had  for  centuries  refused  to  grant  pardon  to  cer- 
tain classes  of  sinners,  regardless  of  their  disposition,  we 
should  have  to  assume  either  that  she  was  unaware  of 
her  duty  to  grant  absolution  and  thus  erred  in  an  es- 
sential point  of  faith,  or  that  she  was  inexcusably  remiss 

30  "Eucharist  and  Penance,"  p.  156. 

31  "L':fidit  de  Calliste,"  p.  71. 

32  "Zkt.,"  1907,  p.  454  ss. 


26  THE  SHEPHERD  OF  HERMAS 

in  the  performance  of  her  duty.  Both  assumptions  are 
untenable  for  one  who  admits  the  divine  institution  of 
the  Church."^^  Pohle,  the  only  dogmatician  who  has 
thus  far  accepted  the  stricter  view  of  some  Church  his- 
torians,^* "would  insist  that  the  dogmatic  theologian 
must  bow  before  the  facts  of  history",  which  facts  Bart- 
mann  considers  "undemonstrated  as  yet,"^^ 

In  summing  up  the  matter  gathered  for  the  concept  of 
mortal  sin  as  presented  by  The  Shepherd  we  can  state 
that  the  document  reflects  sufficiently  well  the  second 
century  notion  of  the  nature  of  grievous  sin.  Non-grie- 
vous sins  are  apparently  not  treated  because  they  do  not 
fall  within  the  range  of  the  work's  purpose.  Sins  of 
thought,  word,  and  deed  are  explained  in  a  popular, 
easily  intelligible  manner.  The  doctrine  of  sin  in  theory 
and  in  practice  remains  untouched  by  the  discussion  to 
which  the  inconsistency  of  the  document  on  the  point  of 
remissibility  of  sin  is  subjected. 

33  "Kkt.,"  1907,  p.  437. 

34  "Lehrbuch  der  Dogmatik,"  III,  p.  401. 

35  "Lehrbuch  der  Dogmatik,"  p.  764. 


^T.  JUSTIN  27 

CHAPTER  V.  

ST.  JUSTIN. 

The  defense  of  the  Church  against  Paganism, 
Judiasm,  and  the  various  forms  of  heresy  by  the  leading 
apologist  of  the  second  century,  brought  out  the  views 
of  Christian  morality  in  strong  relief.  We  expect  a 
quite  systematical  exposition  of  moral  wrong  from  the 
pen  of  a  philosopher-convert  to  the  religion  that  in- 
sisted not  merely  on  a  deep  faith  but  also  on  the  fulfill- 
ment of  the  precepts  proposed  or  confirmed  by  that 
faith.  We  find  the  concept  of  grievous  sin  entering  upon 
the  period  of  transition  from  popular  to  technical  forms 
of  expression. 

Sin  is  the  transgression  of  the  law  with  knowledge 
and  consent.  This  is  the  brief  definition  we  think  we 
are  justified  in  formulating  from  the  words  of  Justin: 
"God,  wishing  men  to  follow  His  will,  resolved  to  create 
them  free  to  do  righteousness,  possessing  reason  that 
they  may  know  by  whom  they  are  created  and  with  a 
law,  that  they  should  be  judged  by  Him  if  they  do  any- 
thing contrary  to  right  reason."^  Even  if  the  text  as  it 
lies  before  us  would  permit  of  another  version,  the  con- 
text of  the  chapter  from  which  the  above  quotation  is 
taken  would  force  us  to  conclude  that  Justin's  purpose  is 
precisely  that  of  giving  an  exact  statement  as  to  the  na- 
ture of  a  transgression  bringing  on  moral  imputability. 
His  exposition  of  the  cause  of  guilt  is  in  reply  to  the 
fundamental  difficulty  concerning  the  freedom  of  the 
will. 

The  philosopher  apologist  had  sufficiently  emphasized 
the  elementary  prerequisite  of  free  will  in  other  parts  of 
the  Dialogtce,  There  remained  apparently  but  one  ade- 
quately satisfactory  solution  to  the  anticipated  ob- 
jection of  the  well  educated  Typho,  and  that  was  a  clear, 

I  "Dial.,"  141  ("Ante-Nicene  Fathers,"  Vol.  i.  Migne,  "Pg.,"  Vol. 
6). 


28  ST.  JUSTIN 

comprehensive  statement  of  the  very  nature  of  trans- 
gression. Less  explicit  expressions  concerning  the  na- 
ture of  sin  in  one  or  more  respects  are  found  in  other 
passages.  Rejection  by  God  denotes  the  state  of  the 
sinner  after  a  grievous  wrong:  "He  who  commits  adul- 
tery is  rejected  by  God."^  Wicked  deeds,  as  for  instance, 
idolatry,  are  compared  to  the  fangs  of  the  serpent.^ 

There  is  no  definite  line  of  demarcation  between 
grievous  sins  and  non-grievous  sins,  but  some  distinction 
seems  to  be  presupposed.  The  venerable  instructor,  men- 
tioned in  the  opening  chapters  of  the  Dialogue,  who  had 
kindled  the  love  of  Christian  philosophy  in  the  soul  of 
Justin,  probably  presupposes  the  notion  of  a  slight  trans- 
gression of  divine  law.  **The  souls,"  he  says,  "would,  af- 
ter punishment,  be  afraid  to  commit  even  the  most  trivial 
sin."*  The  interpretation  of  this  "most  trivial  sin"  as 
meaning  the  least  grievous  sin  would  appear  rather 
forced,  especially  in  view  of  the  context. 

Freedom  in  moral  choice  is  a  concept  frequently  and 
extensively  mentioned  in  the  writings  of  Justin.  Plato, 
he  claims,  took  the  concept  from  the  works  of  Moses.*^ 
And  again  he  tells  us  "we  have  learned  from  the 
prophets  that  punishment  and  rewards  are  rendered  ac- 
cording to  the  merit  of  each  man's  actions."  "Unless  the 
human  race  have  the  power  of  avoiding  evil  and  choos- 
ing good  by  free  choice,  they  are  not  accountable  for 
their  actions,  of  whatever  kind  they  be."^ 

The  whole  chapter  from  which  these  passages  are 
taken  is  a  philosophical  exposition  of  moral  responsi- 
bility as  based  on  the  freedom  of  the  will.  Several  other 
passages  attest  the  conviction  of  Justin  that  voluntari- 
ness is  "a  conditio  sine  qua  non"  of  formal  sin. 

Nor  is  free  will  a  merely  theoretical  matter  with  Jus- 

2  "Apol."  I,  15. 

3  "Dial."  94. 

4  "Dial."  4,    The  English  version  in  "Anf.,"  given  above,  seems 
rather  extreme.    Kal  €<f>oftovvTo  av  kol  to  tv^ov  i^afiapTiiv  vcrcpov. 
Ac  metuerent  ne  quid  deinceps  vel  leviter  peccarent.    Migne,  "P. 
G.,"  VI,  485,  486. 

5  "Apol."  1:44- 

6  "Apol."  1:43. 


< 


ST.  JUSTIN  29 

tin.  Flemming^  claims  Justin  has  added  so  many  practi- 
cal limitations  to  his  defense  of  the  free  will  that  the 
exercise  of  freedom  in  moral  choice  becomes  an  impossi- 
bility. Among  the  limitations  Flemming  quotes  are 
stifled  conscience  and  demoniacal  influence.  The  limi- 
tations are,  of  course,  put  to  the  ethical  actions  based  on 
the  freedom  of  the  will.  "Though  they  all  commit  such 
practices,  yet  they  do  not  escape  the  knowledge  that  they 
act  unrighteously  whenever  they  do  so,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  those  who  are  possessed  with  an  unclean  spirit, 
and  who  have  been  debased  by  education,  by  wicked  cus- 
toms, and  by  sinful  institutions  and  who  have  lost,  or 
rather  quenched  and  put  under  their  natural  ideas."® 
This  is  the  passage  to  which  Flemming  refers — and  a 
first  glance  will  show  that  it  is  an  obvious  contradiction 
of  his  statement.  The  few  and  not  the  many  are  under 
the  influence  of  demons,  and  suffering  from  a  stifled 
conscience. 

As  we  have  seen  in  the  text  enumerating  the  essentials 
of  mortal  sin,  reason,  or  knowledge,  is  considered  as  im- 
portant as  free  will.  It  is  likewise  evident  from  other 
texts  that  moral  cognition  is  looked  upon  by  Justin  as  an 
obviously  presupposed  condition  for  sin.  "It  is  in  the 
nature  of  man  to  know  good  and  evil."^  A  more  practi- 
cal statement  of  his  conviction  on  this  point  is  found  in 
the  following:  "Every  race  knows  that  adultery  and 
fornication  and  homicide  and  such  like  are  sinful;  and 
though  they  commit  such  practices,  yet  they  do  not 
escape  from  the  knowledge  that  they  act  unrighteously 
whenever  they  so  do."^^  Justin  has  stated  in  unmistak- 
able terms  the  theory,  that  knowledge  of  evil  is  a  pre-  x^ 
requisite  condition  to  imputability.  The  objection,  how- 
ever, has  been  made  that,  while  he  upholds  theoretically 
the  faculty  of  moral  cognition,  he  restricts  it  practically 

7  Flemming,    "Zur    Beurteilung   des    Christentums    Justins    des 
Martyrers,"  p.  14. 

8  "Dial."  93- 

9  "Apol."  11:14. 

10  "Dial."  93. 


30  ST.  JUSTIN 

to  such  an  extent  in  his  exposition  of  demonical  influence 
"that  the  exercise  of  that  faculty  is  not  only  greatly  re- 
duced but  becomes  almost  impossible.""  A  brief  exam- 
ination of  the  passages  adduced  to  support  this  objec- 
tion will  show  that  the  influence  of  the  demons  is  not  so 
universal  nor  so  strong  in  those  under  the  spell  of  dia- 
bolical power  as  to  render  the  faculty  of  moral  cogni- 
tion practically  impotent.  The  following  text  speaks  for 
itself:  "These  evil  demons  showed  such  fearful  sights 
to  men  that  those  who  did  not  use  their  reason  in  judg- 
ing of  the  actions  that  were  done,  were  struck  with 
terror  and  called  them  (the  demons)  gods."^^  xhe  use 
of  the  faculty  of  moral  cognition  is  obviously  not  consid- 
ered as  "almost  impossible"  in  the  words:  "We  fore- 
warn you  to  be  on  your  guard  lest  those  demons  divert 
you  from  understanding  what  we  say.  For  they  subdue 
all  who  make  no  strong  opposing  effort  for  their  own 
salvation."^^  Another  text  adduced  to  prove  the  objec- 
tion is  the  following:  "We  know  that  the  wicked  angels 
appointed  laws  conformable  to  their  own  wickedness,  in 
which  men  who  are  like  them  delight ;  and  the  right  Rea- 
son proved  that  not  all  opinions  nor  all  doctrines  are 
good."^*  Immediately  preceding  this  text  we  find  the 
complaint  of  some  that  the  laws  of  men  are  diverse,  that 
there  is  not  a  definite  standard  of  good  and  bad  in  their 
laws.  Justin  views  the  complaint  as  justifiable.  The  in- 
fluence of  the  demons  is  given  as  the  cause  for  the  ab- 
sence of  this  standard  in  those  who  wanted  the  criterion 
of  justice  abolished.  The  very  demand  of  a  practical 
standard  of  justice  in  legislation  argues  the  presence  of 
moral  cognition.  The  reality  of  unjust  legislation  is  a 
fact  that  can  be  recognized  and  deplored  by  the  faculty 
of  moral  cognition  only. 

The  grievousness  of  sinful  thoughts  is  thoroughly  un- 


11  "Zur  Beurteilung  des  Christentums  Justins  des  Maertyrers, 
Flemming,  pp.  14,  16.  In  a  footnote  on  page  25  Flemming  appar- 
ently retracts  his  objection. 

12  "Apol."  1:5. 

13  "Apol."  1:14. 

14  "Apol."  11:9. 


ST.  JUSTIN  31 

derstood  and  propounded  by  Justin.  "Not  only  he  who 
in  act  commits  adultery  is  rejected  by  Him,  but  also  he  —  _ 
who  desires  to  commit  adultery;  since  not  only  our  own 
works  but  also  our  thoughts  are  open  before  God."^''  In 
another  passage  he  wished  to  correct  the  view  of  the 
heathens  who  judged  the  external  sinful  acts  as  wrong, 
but  left  the  intention  out  of  consideration:  "Those  per- 
sons, if  they  learned  and  were  convinced  that  nothing, 
whether  actually  done  or  only  intended,  can  escape  the 
knowledge  of  God,  would  by  all  means  live  decently."^' 

It  would  seem  from  the  first  text  quoted  above  to  show 
Justin's  view  of  the  sinfulness  of  interior  transgressions 
that  he  did  not  distinguish  between  thoughts  and  desires. 
There  is  no  text,  to  our  knowledge,  that  would  give  evi- 
dence of  Justin's  attention  to  this  finer  point  of  interior 
morality. 

From  one  who  has  so  explicitly  condemned  the  sin- 
fulness of  wicked  desires  and  evil  thoughts  we  may 
rightly  expect  the  condemnation  of  sinful  speech:  "All 
kinds  of  filthy  conversation"^^  is  an  expression  Justin 
uses  in  speaking  of  the  degraded  condition  in  which  now 
faithful  members  of  Christianity  had  lived  before  their 
conversion.  Lying  receives  especial  mention  in  his  Dis- 
course to  the  Greeks.^^ 

Among  the  sins  of  deed,  murder,  of  course,  has  a  con- 
spicuous place.  It  is  interesting  to  learn  the  reason  Jus- 
tin gives  why  Christians  should  not  commit  suicide.  The 
major  of  his  argument  contains  the  two-fold  doctrine, 
that  God  made  the  world  for  the  sake  of  the  human  race, 
and  that  He  takes  pleasure  in  having  the  human  race 
imitate  "His  properties".  "If  then",  follows  the  minor, 
"we  all  kill  ourselves,  we  shall  become  the  cause,  as  far 
as  in  us  lies,  why  no  one  should  be  bom,  or  instructed  in 
the  divine  doctrines."^^  The  conclusion,  which,  more- 
over, shows  Justin's  clear  concept  of  the  nature  of  sin. 


15 

"Apol."  I:i5. 

16 

"Apol."  I  :i2. 

17 

"Dial."  n6. 

18 

"Disc"  2. 

19 

"Apol."  11:4. 

32  ST.  JUSTIN 

condemns  the  act  of  killing  as  being  in  opposition  to  the 
will  of  God. 

The  wickedness  of  sins  of  the  flesh  is  treated  in  many 
passages.2^  The  scathing  denunciations  of  the  various 
sins  of  impurity  show  how  strong  the  face  of  Christian- 
ity was  set  against  this  vice.  A  passage  in  the  Dis- 
course to  the  Greeks  speaks  in  a  detailed  manner  of  oc- 
casions that  lead  to  shameful  deeds.  Even  the  influence 
of  improper  music  is  touched  upon.  "There  are  exces- 
sive banquettings  and  subtle  flutes  which  provoke  to  lust- 
ful movements,  and  useless  and  luxurious  anointings  and 
crowning  with  garlands."^!  The  text  which  Justin 
quotes  from  Isaias  (III.  16)  is  apparently  not  applied  by 
him  to  temptations  against  purity.  "The  daughters  of 
Sion  have  walked  with  outstretched  necks,  and  wanton 
glances  of  their  eyes,  and  made  a  noise,  as  they  walked, 
with  their  feet  and  moved  in  a  set  space."  The  context 
refers  chiefly  to  pride.^^ 

Idolatry,  perjury,  wrath,  covetousness,  envy,  hatred 
are  among  the  sins  condemned  by  Justin  as  grievous. 

In  summing  up  the  matter  we  have  gathered  from  the 
most  prominent  apologist  of  the  second  century,  we  may 
state  that  Justin  is  the  first  moralist  who  has  dealt  so 
extensively  with  the  nature  of  grievous  sin.  He  has  de- 
fended well  the  part  that  free  will  and  moral  cognition 
take  in  the  conditions  required  for  the  imputability  of 
serious  guilt.  It  may  be  stated  that  he  is  also  the  first 
to  mention  explicitly  a  levitas  peccati.  We  have,  how- 
ever, not  found  in  any  of  his  works  a  definition  of  the 
nature  of  light  sin.  His  enumeration  of  grievous  sins 
agrees  with  the  traditional  views. 

20  "Apol."  1 :4,  5,  9,  14,  15,  25,  26. 

21  "Disc."  4. 

22  "Dial."  27. 


ST.  IRENAEUS  )  33 

CHAPTER  VI. 
ST.  IRENAEUS. 

In  the  writings  of  this  venerable  bishop  of  Lyons 
(4-202  A.D.)  we  do  not  find  so  explicit  and  extensive  a 
doctrinal  exposition  of  the  concept  of  grievous  sin  as  we 
have  seen  in  the  documents  of  Justin.  Irenaeus  does 
not  deal  with  the  elementary  constituents  of  sin;  he 
obviously  presupposes  the  knowledge  thereof  in  his 
works  against  the  heretics  of  his  day,  who  had  distort- 
ed the  views  of  Christian  morality  once  correctly  im- 
parted and  accepted. 

That  Irenaeus  had  a  clear  concept  of  serious  sin  is 
easily  deduced  from  the  texts  we  are  to  consider.  He 
distinguishes  between  those  who  unite  themselves  by 
faith  to  God,  and  those  who  by  shunning  the  light  have 
separated  themselves  from  God  and  have  deprived  them- 
selves of  all  good.^  Heretics  and  apostates  from  the 
truth  are  patrons  of  the  serpent  and  of  death.^  Sinful 
men  lead  lives  "contrary  to  reason".^  They  are  contrast- 
ed with  "spiritual  men"  who  have  received  the  spirit  of 
God  into  the  union  of  flesh  and  spirit.*  Those  who  have 
given  themselves  over  to  "filthiness,  gluttony  and  reck- 
lessness of  all  sorts"  have  cast  out  from  themselves  "the 
life-giving  Word".^  Sinful  deeds  are  detested  by  God.^ 
Defilement  is  contracted  by  eating  meats  sacrificed  to 
idols.^  False  doctrines  are  "the  bitter  and  malignant 
poison  of  the  serpent."^  We  should  seek  through  faith 
and  chaste  conversations  to  preserve  the  Spirit  of  God, 
"lest  having  become  non-participative  of  the  Divine 
Spirit  we  lose  the  kingdom  of  heaven."® 

1  "Adv.  Haer.,"  V,  c.  28:1;  Minge,  "Pg.,"  Vol.  7;  "Ante-Nicene 
Fathers,"  Vol.  i. 

2  "Adv.  Haer.,"  Ill,  c.  18:8. 

3  "Adv.  Haer,  V,  c.  8:2. 

4  "Ibid." 

5  "Adv.  Haer,"  V,  c.  8:4. 

6  "Adv.  Haer.,"  IV,  c.  24:1. 

7  "Adv.  Haer.,"  I,  c  6:3. 

8  "Adv.  Haer.,"  I,  c  27  14. 

9  "Adv.  Haer.,"  V,  c.  9:3- 


34  ST.  IRENAEUS 

Irenaeus  lays  special  stress  on  the  fact  that  sin  is,  in 
its  nature,  not  a  matter  of  indifference.  The  contention 
of  the  heretics,  that  adultery  and  eating  of  things  sacri- 
ficed to  idols,  grievous  sins  in  general,  were  of  no  further 
consequence,  brought  out  the  opposition  of  Irenaeus. 
He  condemns  at  considerable  length  the  heretical  doc- 
trine, that  "carnal  things  should  be  allowed  to  the  car- 
nal."^°  The  heretic  Basilides  "attaches  no  importance  to 
meats  offered  in  sacrifice  to  idols"  and  asserts  that  lust 
in  all  forms  is  a  matter  of  indifference."  Carpocrates 
and  his  followers  are  accused  of  unbridled  madness  in 
maintaining  "that  things  are  evil  or  good  simply  in  vir- 
tue of  human  opinion." ^^  Irenaeus  quotes  the  Apo- 
calypse to  prove  the  falsehood  of  the  Nicolaitanian  doc- 
trine, that  adultery  and  eating  of  things  sacrificed  to 
idols  are  matters  of  indifference.^^  Marcion's  doctrine 
that  murder,  sodomy  and  all  kinds  of  abominations  are 
authorized  by  God  is  mentioned  as  coming  from  "the 
mouth  of  the  devil."^* 

Knowledge  and  free  will  as  prerequisites  to  imputabi- 
lity  are  quite  easily  deduced  from  the  following  text: 
"Man,  being  endowed  with  reason,  having  been  made 
free  in  his  will,  is  himself  the  cause  to  himself  that  some- 
times he  becomes  wheat  and  sometimes  chaff."^^  A 
whole  chapter  of  more  than  usual  length  is  devoted  to 
the  proof  of  the  doctrine  that  man  is  endowed  with  the 
faculty  of  making  a  choice.^'  Part  of  another  chapter 
explains  quite  extensively  the  faculty  of  moral  cogni- 
tion.i^ 

The  remissibility  of  sin  is  a  doctrine  well  defended  in 
the  writings  of  Irenaeus.^*  In  one  passage,  however, 
there  seems  to  be  a  difficulty  concerning  this  teaching. 


10  "Adv.  Haer.,"  I,  c-  6:3. 

11  "Adv.  Haer.,"  I,  c.  2:4.  5. 

12  "Advr.  Haer.,"  I,  c.  25:4. 

13  "Adv.  Haer.,"  I,  c.  26:3. 

14  "Adv.  Haer.,"  I,  c.  27:3. 

15  "Adv.  Haer.,"  IV,  c.  4:3. 

16  "Adv.  Haer.,"  IV,  zj. 

17  "Adv.  Haer.,  IV,  c.  39:1. 

18  "Zkt.,"  1008,  p  488  ss 


ST.  IRENAEUS  35 

An  impartial  examination  of  the  context  will,  we  believe, 
solve  the  seeming  contradiction  between  this  and  other 
statements  of  Irenaeus  on  the  remission  of  sins.  "Christ 
shall  not  die  again  in  behalf  of  those  who  now  commit 
sin."^^  In  the  same  paragraph  we  read:  "We  ought  to 
fear,  lest  perchance,  if  we  do  things  displeasing  to  God, 
after  the  knowledge  of  Christ,  we  obtain  no  further  for- 
giveness of  sins,  but  be  shut  out  from  His  kingdom."^** 
The  context  suggests  the  warning  that  we  should  avoid 
sin  because  we  might  become  hardened  therein. 

The  first  passage  in  the  early  documents  of  the  Fath- 
ers that  contains  the  "thought,  word,  and  deed"  divi- 
sion of  sin  in  concise  form  is  found  in  the  writings  of 
Irenaeus.  "Christ  not  only  turned  His  disciples  away 
from  evil  deeds,  but  even  from  words  and  thoughts."^^ 
That  Irenaeus  did  not  wish  to  permit  hereby  the  de- 
duction that  words  and  thoughts  are  merely  preliminary 
to  sin  in  deed  is  quite  evident  from  passages  which  show 
that  he  considered  certain  words  and  thoughts  sinful. 
Unchaste  conversations  would  make  us  "non-participa- 
tive of  the  Divine  Spirit."^^  An  impious  opinion  of  the 
heretics  is  "refuted  by  the  teaching  of  the  Lord  with 
whom  not  only  is  the  adulterer  rejected,  but  also  the 
man  who  desired  to  commit  adultery.^^a  in  the  texts 
just  quoted  the  terms  "non-participative"  and  "rejected" 
leave  no  room  for  doubt  that  the  sins  mentioned  are 
grievous. 

Murder,  adultery,  fornication,  theft,  fraud,  and 
"whatever  things  are  done  to  our  neighbor's  prejudice" 
are  evil  and  detested  by  God.^*  Heresy  and  apostasy  are, 
as  we  have  seen,  the  sins  of  those  "who  show  themselves 
patrons  of  the  serpent  and  of  death."25  Anger  without 
cause  brings  on  damnation.^®    The  text  shows  that  anger 

19  "Adv  Haer,,"  IV,  c.  27:2. 

20  "Adv.  Haer./'  IV,  c.  2^.2, 

21  "Adv.  Haer.,"  II,  c.  32:2. 

22  "Adv.  Haer.,"  V,  c.  9:3- 

23  "Adv.  Haer.,"  II,  c.  32:1. 

24  "Adv.  Haer.,"  c.  24:1.  (IV). 

25  "Adv.  Haer.,"  III.  c.  18:8. 

26  "Adv.  Haer.,"  II,  c.  32:1. 


36  ST.  IRENAEUS 

per  se  is  not  necessarily  a  grievous  wrong.  All  swear- 
ing, especially  false  swearing,  is  to  be  avoided,  but  no  de- 
gree of  guilt  is  mentioned.^^ 

Irenaeus  has  shown  us,  in  practical  terminology,  the 
nature  of  sin.  Particular  stress  is  placed  on  the  doc- 
trine that  grievous  sin  is  not  a  matter  of  arbitrary 
opinion.  He  has  explained  the  elementary  requisites  of 
imputability.  Sins  of  thought,  word,  and  deed  receive 
explicit  mention,  likewise  various  kinds  of  sin.  Sins  of 
a  non-grievous  nature  are  not  given  any  consideration, 
because  of  the  fact,  that  perhaps,  in  dealing  with  the 
heretics  of  his  day,  Irenaeus  could  show  the  falsity  of 
their  doctrines  by  the  more  palpable  errors  concerning 
evidently  grievous  transgressions. 

From  the  documents  of  other  writers  toward  the  end 
of  the  second  century  we  may  gain  a  few  points  of  con- 
siderable value  for  our  present  investigation.  Athena- 
goras  of  Athens  has  contributed  the  most  among  the  min- 
or writers.  The  following  passage  seems  to  carry  the 
conviction  that  when  speaking  of  sin  the  writers  meant 
not  so  much  the  habit  of  sin,  or  its  repetition,  as  the 
single  act.  "You  know  that  those  whose  life  is  directed 
towards  God  as  its  rule — so  that  each  one  among  us  may 
be  blameless  and  irreproachable  before  Him, —  will  not 
entertain  even  the  thought  of  the  slightest  sin."^^  In 
another  passage  Athenagoras  likewise  speaks  apparent- 
ly of  non-grievous  sin.  **As  to  those  who  are  persuaded 
that  nothing  will  escape  the  scrunity  of  God ...  it  is  not 
likely  that  they  will  commit  even  the  smallest  sin."^® 
It  is  not  improbable  that  non-grievous  sin,  or  as  we  term 
it,  venial  sin,  was  understood  by  the  Christians  of  his 
day.    The  texts  adduced  however  prove  only  this  con- 


27  "Ibid." 

28  "Legatio  pro  Christianis,"  c  31.;  "Anf.,"  Vol.  11.      *Io-tc  tov- 

Tov<s  iJir)h'  €is  Ivvoiav  irort  tov  jipa^vraTov  iXevcrofjiivovs  a/xapny/Aaros- 
Eos  non  ignoratis  ne  cogitationem  quidem  unquam  vel  levissimi 
admissuros  peccati."  Migne,  "P.  G.,"  VI,  961,  962. 

29  Legatio  pro  Christianis,  c.  36.  OvSets  A.oyos  c^"  ®^^«  '^*^^ 
PpayyraTiiiv  ri  dfmpT€iv.  "Eos  ne  levissimum  quidem  peccatum  ad- 
missuros consentaneum  est.    Migne,  *P.  G-,"  VI,  969,  970. 


ST.  IRENAEUS  37 

clusively  that  sins  were  graded  according  to  seriousness 
of  offense. 

Improper  thoughts,  even  if  momentary,  but  committed 
with  deliberation,  are  grievous  sins  according  to  his  ad- 
aptation of  a  passage  from  some  apocryphal  writing: 
"If  any  one  kiss  a  second  time  because  it  has  given  him 
pleasure  (he  sins) .  .if  there  be  mixed  with  it  (i.  e.  with 
the  kiss  of  salutation)  the  least  defilement  of  thought,  it 
excludes  us  from  eternal  life."^^ 

Presence  at  sinful  spectacles  was  considered  wrong. 
The  Christians  **have  abjured  the  contests  (fights  of 
gladiators)  because  they  deem  seeing  a  man  put  to  death 
the  same  as  killing  him."^^ 

Aristides  of  Athens  speaks  of  the  good  life  of  the 
Christians  in  a  manner  that  leaves  no  doubt  as  to  what 
they  thought  of  a  single  evil  act.^^ 

30  "Legatio,"  32. 

31  "Legatio,"  35- 

32  Cf.  "Apology,"  15.    "Ante-Nicene  Fathers,"  IX,  p.  263. 


SECOND  PART 
Tertullian. 


PRELIMINARIES  41 


CHAPTER  VII. 

PRELIMINARIES.     TERTULLIAN'S   WORKS.     HIS 
VIEWS  ON  CHRISTIAN  PERFECTION. 

The  most  important  contributor,  among  the  early- 
writers,  to  the  subject  matter  under  discussion  in  this 
study  is  Tertullian.^  Of  his  thirty  extant  works,  at 
least  fifteen  treat  of  practical  morality  and  kindred  sub- 
jects. His  works  are  mostly  all  of  a  polemical  nature 
and  some  of  his  ascetico-moral  writings  are  extremely 
S0.2  If  De  Baptismo^  may  be  counted  among  Tertullian's 
practico-ascetical  writings,  we  have  eight  books  from 
his  Catholic  period,  seven  date  from  his  Semi-Montanis- 
tic  years,  and  four  were  written  after  his  conversion  to 
Montanism.  His  Catholic,  his  semi-Montanistic,  and  his 
Montanistic  attitude  must  be  taken  into  consideration  in 
adjudging  the  value  of  his  opinions  on  moral  questions, 
especially  since  Semi-Montanism,  and  all  the  more  so 
Montanism,  give  his  writings  a  plainly  discernible  taint 
of  rigorism.  The  change  in  his  attitude  towards  the  re- 
mission of  sins  committed  after  baptism,  his  rigoristic 
views  of  sins  committed  directly  against  God,  his  Mon- 
tanistic view  of  remission  of  sins  independent  of  the 
Church,  all  have  to  be  taken  into  account  in  weighing 
Tertullian's  authority  on  moral  topics. 

Nor  must  it  be  forgotten  that  Tertullian's  "burning 
eloquence,  biting  satire,  compact  and  forcible  logic"*  are 
important  elements  in  all  his  writings  and  especially  in 
those  treating  of  moral  subjects,  when  the  nature  of  the 
matter  gave  his  tendencies  full  sway.  In  his  apologetical 
and  dogmatico-polemical  treaties  he  feels  himself  con- 


1  Bardenhewer  calls  Tertullian  "the  most  prolific  of  all  the 
Latin  writers ;  he  is  also  the  most  original  and  personal."  Bar- 
denhewer-Shahan  "Patrology,"  p.  179,  Freiburg  i.  B.,  1908. 

2  E.  g.  "De  Monogamia,  De  Pudicitia,  De  Jejunio  adversus  Psy- 
chicos." 

3  De  Labriolle,  "Tertullian,"  p.  IX  (Introd.),  Paris,  1906. 

4  Bardenhewer,  op.  cit.,  p.  180. 


42  PRELIMINARIES 

strained  to  follow  carefully  the  lines  laid  down  for  him 
in  the  **rule  of  faith."  In  the  works  on  the  practical 
everyday  life  of  the  Christian,  Tertullian  seems  con- 
scious of  a  certain  latitude  in  thought  and  expression. 
However,  since  his  forensic  mind  seeks  exactness  he 
tends  towards  rigorism.  Oratorical  means  and  dialec- 
tics supplant  at  times  the  requisites  of  logic. 

A  brief  review  of  the  principal  works  of  Tertullian 
from  which  we  shall  quote  in  the  course  of  this  study  to 
gain  his  opinion  on  the  concept  of  personal  sin  will 
serve  as  a  guide  in  evaluating  the  texts  adduced.''  De 
Spectaculis  is  an  interesting  disquisition  on  the  reasons 
why  Christians  are  forbidden  to  attend  shows  and  pub- 
lic pleasures.  Vanity,  immorality,  idolatry,  superstition, 
abuse  of  God's  name,  and  the  passionate  excitement  are 
some  of  the  reasons  under  discussion.  De  Oratione  ex- 
horts Christians  to  order  their  lives  according  to  the 
contents  of  the  "Our  Father",  and  interprets  prayer- 
rubrics  with  an  ascetical  intent.  De  Baptismo,  princi- 
pally a  dogmatic  treatise,  speaks  in  some  passages  of 
sins  and  their  remission.  De  Patientia  extols  the  nature 
of  patience,  shows  its  connection  with  the  beautitudes, 
with  forgiveness,  with  charity  and  with  other  divine  pre- 
cepts, and  points  out  the  scope,  influence  and  results  of 
impatience. 

The  most  important  work   of   Tertullian's   Catholic 

5  The  following  table,  giving  the  chronological  sequences  of 
Tertullian's  extant  works  and  showing  to  what  period  they  are 
to  be  ascribed,  will  give  us  at  a  glance  a  basis  for  their  value  from 
the  Catholic  standpoint.  The  order  given  is  the  one  followed  by 
D'Ales,  "La  Theologie  de  Tertullien,"  p.  XIII  (Introd.),  Paris,  1905 : 
I.  Catholic  period,  before  206:  "Ad  Martyres,  Ad  Nationes"  (2 
books),  "Apologeticum,"  "De  Testimonio  Animae,"  "De  Spectacu- 
lis," "De  Praescriptione  Haereticorum,"  "De  Oratione,"  "De  Bap- 
tismo,"  "De  Patientia,"  "De  Paenitentia,"  "De  Cultu  Feminarum" 
(2  books),  "Ad  Uxorem"  (2  books),  "Adversus  Hermogenem,"  "Ad- 
versus  Judaeos."  II.  Semi-Montanistic  period,  206-212:  "De  Vir- 
ginibus  Velandis,"  "Adversus  Marcionem"  (4  books),  "De  Pallio," 
"Adversus  Valentinianos,"  "De  Anima,"  "De  Carne  Christi,"  "De 
Re-surrectione  Carnis,"  "Adversus  Marcionem"  (5th  book),  "De 
Exhortatione  Castitatis,"  "De  Corona,"  "Scorpiace,"  "De  Idolola- 
tria,"  "Ad  Scapulam."  III.  Montanistic  period,  after  213:  "De 
Fuga  in  Persecutione,"  "Adversus  Praxeam,"  "De  Monogamia," 
"De  Jejunio  adversus  Psychicos,"  "De  Pudicitia." 


PRELIMINARIES  4S 

period  dealing  with  morality  is  De  Pnenitentia,  It  ex- 
plains the  nature,  origin,  practice,  and  the  demands  of 
penance.  Various  divisions  of  sin  are  somewhat  exten- 
sively dwelt  upon.  A  very  profuse  discussion  of  the  in- 
fluences that  supposedly  or  really  lead  to  sin  are  found 
in  De  CvUu  Feminarum,  Modesty  in  the  apparel  of 
women  and  men,  the  origin  of  ornamentation,  the  per- 
missibility of  certain  refinements  in  dress,  and  other  re- 
lated subjects,  receive  lengthy  attention.  Ad  Uxorem, 
while  preferring  celibacy,  upholds  the  dignity  of  mar- 
riage, permits  more  than  one  marriage  but  places 
widowhood  in  a  sense  even  above  virginity  and  forbids 
marriages  between  Christians  and  heathens.  The  books 
thus  far  mentioned  belong,  as  indicated  in  the  table  given 
in  footnote,  to  the  Catholic  period  of  Tertullian. 

De  Virginibus  Velandis  shows  signs  of  rigorism  in 
dealing  with  a  matter  closely  related  to  the  theme  of 
De  Cultu  Feminarum.  A  rather  abstract  discussion  of 
the  power  of  volition  is  followed  by  a  lengthy  tirade 
against  second  marriage  in  De  Exhortatione  ad  Castitor- 
tern.  A  specific  case  of  conflict  between  Christian  and 
heathen  principles  of  worship  is  brought  in  De  Corona,. 
The  treatise  De  Idololatria  speaks  chiefly  of  the  sin  of 
idolatry  but  it  also  brings  out  some  fine  points  of  co- 
operation. These  four  works  of  Tertullian  show  a  lean- 
ing, which  in  some  passages  is  quite  evident,  towarda 
Montanistic  rigorism. 

The  works  of  the  Montanistic  period  contain  much 
that  pertains  to  the  concept  of  personal  sin.  De  Fuga  in 
P&rsecutione  proposes  and  solves,  of  course  in  a  Montan- 
istic sense,  the  necessity  of  open  profession  of  faith. 
Second  Marriage  is  attacked  in  De  Monogamia.  The 
fasting  discipline  of  the  Psychics  is  denounced,  that  of 
the  Pneumatics  is  defended  in  De  J e junto.  An  uncom- 
promising attitude  toward  those  who  were  guilty  of  cer- 
tain sins  of  the  flesh  is  taken  in  Tertullian's  best  known 
Montanistic  work,  De  Pudicitia. 

An  important  element  that  must  ever  be  considered  in 
weighing  Tertullian's  morality  views  is  his  concept  of 


44  PRELIMINARIES 

practical  Christianity.  The  discemibly  distinct  stages 
of  his  narrowing  asceticism  are  of  decisive  influence  on 
his  presentation  of  discipline.  The  rigorism  of  his 
Catholic  period  grew  into  fanaticism  as  he  gradually 
drifted  away  from  the  Church.  The  impossible  demands 
of  his  Montanistic  morality  were  to  some  extent  the  out- 
growth of  an  exaggeratedly  strict  system  of  striving  for 
a  state  of  perfection  with  which  Tertullian  identified  the 
dutiful  following  of  Christ.  They  were  not  due  merely 
to  the  opposition  he  had  caused  himself  by  leaving  the 
Church.^ 

In  evident  contrast  to  heathen  morality  founded  on 
human  opinion  and  limited  thereby,  stands  that  of 
Christianity,  based  on  God's  authority  and  co-extensive 
with  the  perfect  knowledge  of  goodness.^  Between 
theory  and  practice  there  is  no  distinction.  "We  alone 
are  without  crime"  is  his  challenging  statement.  The 
very  knowledge  of  God's  laws  leaves  no  middle  choice 
between  Christian  sinlessness  and  heathen  depravity.® 
The  thorough  knowledge  of  Christian  duties,  the  ever 
present  consciousness  of  an  all-seeing  God,  and  the  fear 
of  everlasting  punishment  spur  the  believer  on  to  the 
goal,  namely  a  "blameless  life.'*^  The  view  of  a  blame- 
less life  is  upheld  by  Tertullian  almost  constantly, 
though  there  are  passages,  comparatively  few,  however, 
in  which  he  makes  concessions  to  human  frailty  and 
does  not  reckon  alone  with  the  "perfect  knowledge." 

Christian  modesty  is  perfect  modesty.  It  execrates 
even  the  desire  for  sin.  The  life  of  a  believer  must  be 
so  holy  and  so  perfect  in  accordance  with  faith  that  he 
will  possess  confidence  and  security  as  to  his  remaining 
unstained  by  sin.    Tertullian  realizes,  however,  that,  per- 

6  D'Ales,  "La  Theol.  de  Tert.,"  p.  497;  Noeldechen,  "Tertullian," 
p.  491  sqq.,  Gotha,  1890. 

7  "Apol.,"  XLV. 

8  "Apol.,"  ibid. 

9  "Apol.,"  ibid. — We  may  discern  here  the  perfect  and  the  im* 
perfect  motives  of  leading  a  life  without  sin.  From  other  pas- 
sages to  be  adduced  later,  e.  g.,  "Paen.,"  passim,  we  may  con- 
clude that  the  "ample  knowledge"  contains  by  its  very  nature,  the 
motive  of  perfect  love,  God,  goodness  in  itself. 


PRELIMINARIES  45 

feet  as  the  Christian  should  be,  he  must  not  live  in  pre- 
sumption. Falling  into  sin  will  always  remain  pos- 
sible.'^ The  passage  to  which  we  have  just  referred  in 
footnote  shows  how  much  stress  Tertullian  puts  on  the 
absolute  obligation  of  being  perfect,  but  also  how  much 
he  fears  that  in  reality  the  weakness  of  the  flesh  will  as- 
sert itself.  Not  only  should  artificial  or  studied  comeli- 
ness be  rejected,  but  even  "natural  grace  should  be  ob- 
literated by  concealment  and  negligence."^^  The  former, 
he  claims,  is  "most  perilous"  as  an  occasion  of  concu- 
piscence. The  latter  should  be  feared  because  of  the 
jealousy  of  suitors.  Moreover,  natural  beauty  is  un- 
necessary and  vainglorious.  The  passage  brings  out  in 
strong  relief  the  continual  conflict  between  the  ideal  and 
the  real  in  Tertullian's  concept  of  morality.  Much  of 
the  difficulty  in  understanding  Tertullian's  inconsistent 
statements  concerning  sin  in  some  passages  is  overcome 
by  observing  his  mental  attitude  towards  the  principle 
of  idealism  or  perfection  in  Christianity  and  the  short- 
comings that  occur  in  the  application  of  the  ideal  stand- 
ard to  the  life  of  the  ordinary  faithful.  The  attempt  to 
make  the  ideal  an  accomplished  fact  undoubtedly  had  its 
influence  on  Tertullian's  moral  views. 

Faithfulness  in  contracts,  sacredness  of  fidelity  in  mar- 
ried life,  honesty  with  all  trusts,  absence  of  revenge, 
helping  the  needy,  these  virtues  are  inherent  realities  in 
Christian  life.  Those  who  lack  these  virtues  are  repudi- 
ated by  the  Christian  community  and  but  falsely  pretend 
to  belong  thereto.'=^  The  perfection  required  of  the 
Christian  as  just  mentioned,  cannot  be  said  to  be  exag- 
gerated because  of  Tertullian*s  Semi-Montanistic  as- 
ceticism. A  like  rigorism  do  we  find  in  his  Catholic 
period.  Those  whom  heresies  have  torn  away  from  the 
faithful  "ought  never  to  have  been  esteemed  as  prudent 
or  faithful  or  approved."      Final  perseverance  makes 

10  "Cult.  Fern,"  II,  2. 

11  "Cult.  Fern.,"  ibid. 

12  "Scap.,"  IV;  "Ad  Scapulam"  is  given  in  D'  Ales*  list  of  Ter- 
tullian's  works  as  the  last  book  of  the  Semi-Montanistic  period. 


46  PRELIMINARIES 

the  real  Christian.^^  He  who  falls  away  never  deserved 
the  name  of  Christian.  Though  it  is  here  a  question  of 
faith  only,  we  see  the  conflict  between  Tertullian's  ideals 
and  the  realization  of  the  deplorable  fact  that  some 
desert  the  ranks  of  the  faithful.  The  admission  is  im- 
plied that  falling  away  from  the  faith  is  after  all  not  an 
extraordinary  thing.  But  the  argument  given  by  Ter- 
tullian  why  such  a  sin  should  not  cause  consternation 
does  not  seem  applicable.  To  the  Son  of  God  alone,  he 
argues,  was  it  reserved  to  remain  without  sin.  The  argu- 
ment would  not  favor  the  ideal  of  perfection  he  implies 
in  the  statements  preceding  it.^*  We  could  not  urge  as 
an  inconsistency  in  the  texts:  Soli  enim  Dei  filio  servo- 
batur  sine  delicto  permanere  and  Nemo  Christianus, 
nisi  qui  ad  finem  zcsque  perseveraverit.^^  Saul,  David 
and  Solomon  are  adduced  as  examples  of  frailty  to  show 
that  even  the  best  fall.  Hence,  we  should  not  consider 
the  sin  of  heresy  as  something  extraordinary.  Christ  is 
the  only  one  who  remained  free  from  sin.  Even  if  a 
martyr  fell  away  from  the  faith,  that  would  not  prove 
the  truth  of  any  heretical  doctrine.  The  truth  of  faith 
does  not  depend,  therefore,  on  persons.  But  then  we 
find  Tertullian  stating  that  to  be  a  Christian  means  to 
persevere  to  the  end.  The  proposition  Tertullian  had 
set  himself  to  prove  appears  rather  confused  in  the 
passage  quoted  from  Praesc,  Haer.  The  ideal  of  Chris- 
tian perfection  is  predominant  more  by  intent  of  the 
writer  than  by  the  content  of  the  writing.  While  we 
would  not  want  to  make  the  unqualified  statement  that 
Tertullian's  asceticism  controlled  his  doctrinalism,  we 
are  strongly  inclined  to  believe  that  rigorism  swayed  his 
beliefs. 

In  protesting  against  persecution  Tertullian  calls  at- 
tention to  the  fact  that  among  the  prisoners  awaiting 
sentence  there  are  no  Christians,  none  at  least  who  are 


13  "Praesc.  Haer.,"  III. 

14  "Praesc.  Haer./*  Ill,  5,  in  edition  of  de  Labriolle,  p.  6,  Paris, 
1907. 

15  "Praesc.  Haer.,"  ibid. 


PRELIMINARIES  47 

imprisoned  for  any  other  cause  but  that  of  bearing  the 
name  of  Christian.  If  a  so-called  Christian  is  to  be 
found  in  the  public  prison  for  any  other  cause  than  that 
of  his  faith  he  is  no  longer  a  Christian.  Virtuous  and 
Christian  are  synonyms.^^  Those  members  of  the  faith- 
ful community  who  depart  from  "our  rules  of  discipline" 
are  no  longer  to  be  counted  Christians.  Of  course  the 
Christians  are  not  guilty  of  any  serious  crimes.  "We 
alone  are  without  crime."^^  Theft/^  homosexuality, 
marital  infidelity/^  incontinence, ^^  atrocities,  seduction, 
sacrilege,^^  are  not  to  be  found  among  the  faithful.  The 
Christian's  grace-healed  eyes  are  sightless  when  there  is 
question  of  lustful  books.  The  assaults  of  passion  do 
not  affect  him.  His  modesty  of  behavior  is  plainly  of  a 
superior  kind.^^  He  is  not  proud  even  when  dealing 
with  the  poor."  Indeed  the  Christians  are  remarkable 
for  the  reformation  of  their  former  vices.^* 

With  all  this  idealism  Tertullian  admits  the  unde- 
niable facts  of  sinfulness  that  confront  him  in  Chris- 
tian communities.  There  are  exceptions  too,  he  reluct- 
antly grants,  but  he  immediately  adds  the  restriction 
that  such  are  rejected.^'  The  whole  treatise  De  Specta- 
cutis,  an  admission  that  there  are  Christians  who  do  not 
meet  with  the  high  expectations  of  the  asceticist,  is  a 
reprimand  of  those  Christians  who  indulge  in  worldly 
pleasures.  Some  of  the  faithful  evidently  adhered  to  the 
views  of  heathens  as  to  the  permissibility  of  certain 
worldly  pleasures  which,  however,  are  "not  consistent 
with  true  religion  and  true  obedience  to  the  true  God."^* 
For  these  pleasures  bring  about  wrath,  anger,  bitter- 
ness, rivalry  and  grief,  which  are  entirely  out  of  keep- 


i6 

"Apol.,"  44. 

17 

"Apbl."  45. 

18 

"Scap."  2,  "Apol."  44- 

19 

"Apol."  46. 

20 

Ibid. 

21 

"Apol."  44- 

22 

Ibid. 

23 

Ibid. 

24 

"Scap."  2. 

25 

"Apol."  46. 

26 

"Spect."  I. 

48  PRELIMINARIES 

ing  with  the  religion  of  Christ,"  and  which  they  "who 
are  consecrated  to  peace,  should  never  indulge  in.^^s 
Listening  to  improper  recitations  in  the  shows  is  for- 
bidden, looking  at  disgraceful  deeds  likewise,  and  no 
Christian  who  visits  the  shows  can  justify  such  action 
on  the  plea  that  the  immodest  speech  and  the  immodest 
deed,  not  the  hearing  or  the  seeing  immodest  things,  are 
sinful.  Going  from  religious  services  to  the  profanities 
of  the  circus,  "from  God's  Church  to  the  deviPs",  is 
something  monstrous.^^  Tertullian  plainly  implies  that 
some  Christians  go  to  heathen  meetings  and  assemblies 
where  God's  name  is  blasphemed.  They  should  remem- 
ber, he  warns,  that  though  their  adherence  to  the  Chris- 
tian faith  is  not  shown  externally  at  these  gatherings 
there  is  a  God  above  who  sees  all  things.  Tertullian  ap- 
pears painfully  impressed  by  those  who  in  ingratitude 
fail  to  recognize  God's  "pleasures".  He  seeks  to  win  them 
over  by  placing  before  them  the  worthy  spiritual  sub- 
stitutes for  the  worldly  enjoyments.^^  The  pleasure- 
seeking  Christians  who  delight  in  the  literature  of  the 
stage  should  put  that  aside  and  take  up  the  verses,  sen- 
tences, songs  "of  our  own",  the  fightings  and  wrestlings 
of  the  circus  should  be  replaced  by  contests  between  vir- 
tue and  vice.^^  While  regretting  the  worldly-mindedness 
of  Christians,  Tertullian  rises  to  the  lofty  heights  of  his 
ideal  Christianity  and  demands  of  the  faithful  a  per- 
fection that  would  grace  the  members  of  religious  or- 
ders. Contempt  of  all  worldly  things,  distaste  of  plea- 
sure, living  to  God  befit  a  Christian.^^  xhe  passionate 
appeal  of  the  closing  chapter  of  De  Spectaculis  seems  a 
fair  warning  to  all  to  abstain  from  the  shows  that  they 
may  not  tremble  on  the  day  of  "the  great  judgment."  In 
fact,  the  perfection  of  the  ordinary  faithful  seems  to 
have  been  of  so  high  an  order  that  seeking  after  divine 

27  "Spect."  15. 

28  "Spect."  16. 

29  "De  coelo  in  caenum,"  "Spect."  25. 

30  "Spect."  29. 

31  Ibid. 

32  Ibid. 


PRELIMINARIES  49 

f  revelations  and  miraculous  cures  are  mentioned  among 
the  noblest  pleasures  considered  by  Tertullian  as  be- 
coming to  Christian  men. 

His  rigorism,  tempered  however  by  a  realization  of 
its  own  exaggeration  will  guard  us  against  taking  his 
statements  at  their  face  value.  A  conservative  prin- 
ciple, therefore,  which  could  be  applied  in  weighing  Ter- 
tullian's  morality  doctrines,  could  be  summed  up,  per- 
haps, in  the  statement  that  Tertullian's  standard  of 
morality  is  perceptibly  higher  than  the  one  applied  in 
the  ordinary  life  of  his  time  and  is  to  be  considered  sub- 
stantially modified  by  his  Semi-Montanistic  and  Montan- 
istic  tendencies  and  teachings. 


50  TERTULLIAN'S  VIEW  ON  THE  NATURE  OF  SIN    . 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
TERTULLIAN'S  VIEW  ON  THE  NATURE  OF  SIN. 

Tertullian  speaks  at  great  length  of  various  kinds  of 
sins,  of  the  remissibility  or  non-remissibility  of  sins  and 
of  other  phases  of  the  sin  problem,  but  he  discourses 
comparatively  little  on  the  nature  of  sin^  That  is  per- 
haps due  to  the  fact  that  Tertullian's  principal  object  in 
writing  on  moral-ascetical  questions  was  the  practical 
application  of  Christian  doctrine  of  transgression  of  the 
law  in  everyday  life.  His  purpose  at  times  was  to  place 
before  non-Christians  the  actual  perfection  that  was  ex- 
pected of  the  faithful  and  was  actually  to  be  met  with  in 
the  daily  life  of  the  conscientious  observer  of  the  pre- 
cepts given  by  the  rule  of  faith  and  the  rule  of  discipline. 
Tangible  arguments,  the  Carthagenian  was  well  aware, 
appealed  most  to  a  world  steeped  in  materialism.  Ab- 
stract treatment  of  moral  subjects  is  comparatively  rare 
in  the  works  of  Tertullian.^ 

St.  Augustine's  definition  of  sin  is  as  follows:  Pecca^ 
tus  est  factum  vel  dictum  vel  concupitum  aliquid  contra 
legem  aetemam,^  St.  Thomas  defines  sin  as  an  actus 
humanus  mahis,^  The  materia  is  the  act,  word  or  deed, 
the  forma  is  the  opposition  to  the  eternal  law.^  The 
nearest  approach  to  the  definition  of  St.  Augustine,  as 
explained  by  St.  Thomas,  in  the  works  of  Tertullian  is 
in  De  Paenitentia,  In  a  chapter  which  treats  more  ex- 
plicitly of  the  nature  of  sin  than  any  other  part  of  Ter- 
tullian's  works,  he  gives  the  following  rather  general  de- 
finition: that  from  which  God  bids  us  abstain  is  to  be 


1  De  Labriolle,  "Tertullien,"  p.  XIV.  (Introd.) 

2  "Cor.,"  c.  II,  Oehler  I,  p.  418  sqq.  "Tertulliani  Opera  Omnia," 
Lipsiae,  1854. 

3  "Contra  Faustum  Manich."  L,  XXII.  c.  27  Migne  "PL."  XLII. 
418. 

4  "Summa  Theol."  la  2^%  q.  71,  art.  7. 

5  St.  Augustine,  uses  "eternal  law"  and  "divine  law"  as  syno- 
nyms. Koch-Preuss,  "Handbook  of  Moral  Theology"  II,  p.  i, 
1st  ed.  i 


TERTULLIAN'S  VIEW  ON  THE  NATURE  OP  SIN  51 

accounted  sin.  He  adds,  however,  that  God  is  "some 
great  essence  of  good."  Sin  is  an  evil  that  displeases 
that  good.  Between  God  and  sin  there  can  be  no  friend- 
ship. Tertullian  limits  the  full  knowledge  of  the  opposi- 
tion between  the  great  essence  of  good  and  sin  to  those 
who  know  the  Lord  and  are  looked  upon  favorably  by 
Him,  that  is,  those  who  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
truth  and  of  the  Lord's  precepts.® 

St.  Augustine's  definition  of  sin  is  specific  and  de- 
tailed, that  of  Tertullian  is  in  itself  quite  elementary, 
but  considered  in  the  context  it  represents  a  thoroughly 
Christian  concept  of  moral  evil.  It  is  God  under  the 
aspect  of  the  infinite  good  who  is  displeased  with  the 
transgression  of  His  precepts.  The  dominica  praecepta 
most  probably  mean  all  the  precepts  of  the  Lord.  Hence 
we  may  conclude  with  some  probability  that,  according 
to  Tertullian,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  Lord's  pre- 
cepts, the  Christian  is  taught  what  constitutes  sin.  The 
source  of  the  Christian's  true  knowledge  of  evil  is  there- 
fore supernatural.  If  by  dominica  praecepta  we  are  to 
understand  the  precepts  of  the  Lord  as  summarized  in 
the  commandments  of  the  love  of  God  and  the  love  of  the 
neighbor  the  philosophical  expatiation  on  sin  as  an  op- 
position to  the  infinite  good  is  understood  as  quite  ap- 
propriate.   In  Paen,  V.  Tertullian  speaks  of  the  Lord's 

6  "Paen."  3,  De  Labriolle  pp.  8,  10.  Quorum  ergo  paenitentia 
justa  et  debita  videatur,  id  est,  quae  delicto  deputanda  sint,  locus 
quidem  expostulat  denotare,  sed  otiosum  videri  potest.  Domino 
enim  cognito  ultro  spiritus  a  suo  auctore  respectus  emergit  ad 
notitiam  veritatis,  et  admissus  ad  dominica  praecepta  ex  ipsis 
statim  eruditur  id  peccato  deputandum  a  quo  Deus  arceat,  quon- 
iiam,  cum  Deum  grande  quid  bonum  constet  esse,  utique  bono  nisi 
malum  non  displiceret,  quod  inter  contraria  sibi  nulla  amicitia 
est. — Tertullian  most  probably  refers  here  to  those  who  have 
been  admitted  to  the  Church  through  baptism.  His  words  seem 
to  imply  that  an  explanation  of  sin  is  quite  superfluous  to  those 
who  know  what  acts  demand  a  just  and  due  repentance.  The 
catechumens  and  neophytes  are,  most  probably,  the  ones  for  whom 
the  contents  of  this  chapter  are  meant. — Cf.  D'Ales,  "L'fidit  de 
Calliste,"  p.  137:  "L'  auteur  s'  adonne  a  V  instruction  des  catechu- 
menes  et  des  neophytes." — The  variations  of  sentence  grouping  of 
the  texts  quoted  above  in  de  Labriolle  and  Oehler  are  not  conse- 
quential. Unless  otherwise  stated,  the  English  versions  of  Latin 
texts  are  taken  from  "Anf." 


52  TERTULLIAN'S  VIEW  ON  THE  NATURE  OF  SIN 

precepts:  Jam  quidem  nullum  ignorantiae  praetextum 
tibi  patrocinatur,  quod  Domino  agnito  praeceptisqvs 
ejus  admissis,  denique  paenitentia  delictorum  functus, 
rursus  te  in  delicta  restituisJ  There  seems  to  be  suffi- 
cient reason  for  the  assumption  that  Tertullian  had  a 
very  exact  concept  of  sin,  especially  if  we  consider  the 
thorough  and  extensive  explanation  which  he  gives  on 
knowledge  and  free  will  as  prerequisites  for  imputabili- 
ti.  St.  Augustine^  specifies  the  manner  in  which  sin  can 
be  committed  as  a  factum,  dictum,  concupitum.  Ter- 
tullian mentions  here  but  two  species,^  the  sins  in  body 
and  in  spirit.^*^  This  specification  is  in  a  technical  sense 
more  exact  than  that  of  St.  Augustine. 

The  qu/isi  materiale  in  Tertullian's  concept  of  sin 
would  be  the  material  or  the  spiritual  act,  the  quxisi 
formale  would  be  the  opposition  of  the  act  to  God,  as  the 
grande  quid  bonum.  The  lex  aetema  of  St.  Augustine  is 
the  immediate  object  circa  quod  of  a  sinful  act.  The 
mediate  but  ultimate  object  circa  quod  of  a  sinful  act  ac- 
cording to  Tertullian  is  God  as  the  supreme  good,  the 
end  of  man.  This  deeper  and  more  comprehensive  view 
was  apparently  in  Tertullian's  mind  in  the  chapter  of 
Paen.  under  discussion. 

Every  sin  is  an  aversion,  in  some  sense,  from  man's 
ultimate  end.  It  is  not  at  all  improbable  that  Tertullian 
had  in  mind  a  concept  of  sin  that  would  contain  all  the 
elements  of  a  definition  for  mortal  and  venial  sin.  But 
this  supposition  cannot  be  urged  much  because  of  the 
clause:  qux)d  inter  contraria  sibi  nulla  amicitia  est.  We 
have  in  this  passage  one  of  many  instances  in  which  the 
conflict  between  broad  oratory  and  strict  logic  produces 

7  "Praecepta  Dominica"  in  "Pud."  IX,  22,  and  XVI,  17,  does 
not  militate  against  the  supposition  as  given  above. 

8  See  also  other  definitions  of  sin  e.  g.  S.  Bonaventurae  "Com- 
ment, in  Sent.""  II,  dist.  35,  dub.  6,  "Opera  Omnia,"  Vol.  II,  p.  838 
sq.    Qparacchi,  1885. 

9  "Paen."  3. 

10  In  another  passage,  "Apol-"  36,  Tertullian  mentions  four 
ways  in  which  sin  can  be  committed :  wish,  action,  speech  and 
thought. 


TERTULLIAN'S  VIEW  ON  THE  NATURE  OF  SIN  53 

uncertainty  in  the  mind  of  the  reader  as  to  the  exact 
meaning  intended  by  the  author. 

The  distinction  between  mortal  and  venial  sin  in  Ter- 
tullian's  works  will  be  taken  up  at  greater  length  in  an- 
other chapter.  But  we  mention  the  possibility  of  a  dis- 
tinction in  the  passage  we  have  been  considering  to  show 
that  in  Tertullian's  allusion  to  the  deeper,  abstract  con- 
cept of  sin  there  is  insinuated  a  quite  comprehensive 
grasp  of  moral  evil  by  the  exponents  of  Christian  faith 
in  the  early  centuries.  Worthy  of  consideration  is  also 
the  statement  of  Tertullian  in  connection  with  his  re- 
marks on  sin  in  Paen.  Ill  that  it  may  seem  unnecessary 
to  dwell  on  the  subject  announced,  namely,  what  should 
be  set  down  under  the  head  of  sin.^^  The  conclusion 
seems  justifiable  that  the  early  Christians  were  well  in- 
structed as  to  the  nature  and  kinds  of  sin. 

The  comparison  between  St.  Augustine's  definition  of 
sin,  which  has  been  adopted  by  St.  Thomas  and  is  the 
usual  textbook  definition,  and  Tertullian's  concept  might 
seem  unfair.  But  stress  has  been  laid  on  the  thorough- 
ness of  Tertullian's  concept  in  comparison  with  the  ac- 
cepted definition  of  St.  Augustine  to  show  how  well  the 
idea  of  sin  was  grasped  by  the  first  Latin  expounder  of 
the  notion  of  evil  transgression.  It  may  be  correctly 
stated  therefore  that  at  the  close  of  the  second  century 
Christianity  had  as  well  developed  a  concept  of  sin  as  in 
the  centuries  of  technical  and  scientific  theology.  Later 
centuries  have  not  added  anything  substantially  new  to 
Tertullian's  concept  of  the  nature  of  sin.  Systematic 
theology  has  assigned  the  concept  its  appropriate  place 
and  has  formulated  for  it  a  terminology  by  which  it 
would  fit  better  into  the  scheme  of  theological  thought. 

The  other  passages  of  Tertullian  that  have  reference 
to  the  nature  of  sin  do  not  show  us  sin  in  its  final  analy- 
sis as  something  directly  opposed  to  the  supreme  good, 
but  they  treat  sin  under  different  relations  and  aspects. 
Sin  is  something  objective,  it  does  not  depend  upon  a 

II    "Paen."  3.  de  Labriolle,  p.  8. 


54  TERTULLIAN'S  VIEW  ON  THE  NATURE  OF  SIN 

subjective  view.  This  is  the  point  Tertullian  brings  out 
in  his  criticism  of  the  soul  theories  of  Carpocrates.  Ac- 
cording to  Carpocrates  the  soul  must  be  recalled  into  ex- 
istence in  the  prison  of  the  body  to  display  "all  those 
blemishes  which  are  considered  to  disfigure  it."  "Noth- 
ing is  accounted  evil  by  nature  but  simply  as  men  think 
of  it."^2  The  question  of  an  erroneous  conscience  does 
not  enter  here.  The  eternal  law  of  God,  not  the  fickle 
mind  of  man,  is  decisive  as  to  the  malice  of  the  human 
act.  Nor  do  the  external  circumstances  of  time  and  place 
alter  the  objectivity  of  evil.  Tertullian  criticizes  severe- 
ly the  vain  reasons  of  those  who  would  see  little  or  no 
guilt  in  attending  the  shows  where  lewdness,  arrogance 
and  cruelty  are  participated  in  by  the  audience,  but  who 
would,  of  course,  admit  that  these  faults  are  worthy  of 
condemnation  outside  the  boundaries  of  the  circus.  The 
general  principle  as  to  the  objective  immutability  of 
evil  is  summed  up  in  the  words:  "That  which  is  really 
good  or  really  evil  cannot  be  aught  else."^^  The  absolute 
nature  of  evil  is  fixed  by  the  truth  of  God  which  is  not 
subject  to  change  of  opinion,  nor  to  varying  judg- 
ments.^* In  opposition  to  the  Christian  view  of  evil  as 
of  something  unchangeable  Tertullian  points  out  the 
fickle  morality  views  of  the  heathen,  who  "holds  a  thing 
evil  and  good  as  it  suits  self-will  and  passion."^*^ 

In  his  Montanistic  period  Tertullian  adds  some  ele- 
ments to  the  concept  of  sin  which  he  hardly  would  have 
accepted  in  his  Catholic  years.^^  Flight  in  time  of  per- 
secution is  an  evil  according  to  Tertullian  for  a  two-fold 
reason.  In  the  first  place  persecution  is  a  good  in  every 
respect  and  since  it  is  a  sin  to  refuse  that  which  is  good, 
flight  in  time  of  persecution  is  sinful.  Again,  persecu- 
tion is  a  divine  and  reasonable  appointment.  Trying  to 
escape  it  is  equivalent  to  reproaching  God  with  doing 
what  is  evil.      Quite  aware  that  these  principles  would 

12  "Anim."  35. 

13  "Spect.  20. 

14  Ibid. 

15  "Spect."  21. 

16  "Fuga  in  Pers."  4,  5. 


TERTULLIAN'S  VIEW  ON  THE  NATXJRE  OF  SIN  55 

find  opposition  he  puts  up  a  lengthy  defense  of  his  view- 
point, in  the  course  of  which  he  confuses  unwillingness 
to  suffer  with  unwillingness  to  confess.  The  latter,  he 
claims,  is  simply  a  denial  of  faith.^^ 

Interpreting  Plato's  doctrine  that  the  soul  is  divided 
into  two  parts,  the  rational  and  the  irrational,  Tertullian 
finds  the  origin  of  the  rational  element  in  the  Author  of  ^ 
Creation,  who  is  Himself  essentially  rational.  The  ir- 
rational element,  however,  must  be  traced  back  to  the  in-  ^ 
stigation  of  the  serpent.  Sin  is  something  inherently  ir- 
rational, which  proceeds  from  the  devil.^^  If  in  other 
passages  Tertullian  speaks  of  the  imputability  of  sin  be- 
cause of  knowledge  and  free  will,  we  may  readily  under- 
stand that  he  is  not  contradicting  himself,  since  he  has 
clearly  placed  before  us  his  meaning  of  sin  as  of  an  act 
lacking  right  reason.^^ 

In  so  far  as  sin  gives  things  earthly  precedence  over 
things  heavenly  it  is  an  offense  that  is  committed  direct- 
ly against  God.  This  description  of  sin  would  apply 
also  to  the  sins  committed  against  man,  the  other  species 
of  Tertullian's  divisions  of  sin.  The  concrete  case  on 
which  Tertullian  bases  his  description  of  the  nature  of 
sin  as  the  preference  for  the  material  is  impatience  at 
the  loss  of  earthly  goods.  The  immediate  context  would 
seem  to  indicate  that  Tertullian  merely  described  the  na- 
ture of  one  sin  without  applying  the  description  to  the 
whole  class  of  sins,  which  in  De  Pvdicitia  he  considers  as 
directly  committed  against  God.^^^ 

17  Noeldechen,  op.  cit-,  p.  321 

18  "Anim."  16. 

19  "Anim."  ibid.  Oehler  II,  p.  579:  a  diabolo  inrationale,  a  quo 
et  delictum, — inrationale  autem  omne  delictum. 

20  "Pat."  VII.  Oehler  I,  p.  601 :  Qui  damni  impatientia  concita- 
tur  terrena  caelestibus  anteponendo,  de  proximo  in  deum  peccat. 
— Cf.  the  use  of  "de  proximo"  in  "Pat."  V,  "Cor."  7,  "Apol."  27.  It 
must  be  remembered  that  "Pat."  is  one  of  Tertullian's  Catholic 
works  in  which  we  do  not  find  the  inconsistencies  that  later  on 
were  due  to  a  change  of  heart. 


56  COGNITION  AND  VOLITION 


CHAPTER  IX. 

TERTULLIAN'S  VIEW  ON  THE   PREREQUISITES 

OF  MORAL  RESPONSIBILITY:  COGNITION 

AND  VOLITION. 

The  conditions  required  on  the  part  of  the  soul  for  the  ' 
responsibility  in  moral  acts,  namely  knowledge  and  free 
will,  are  well  expounded  and  defended  by  Tertullian. 
The  discourses  especially  on  the  free  will  meet  the  ex- 
pectations we  would  hold  after  perusing  a  few  products 
of  the  Tertullianic  mind.  It  is  true,  moral  cognition, 
that  is  knowledge  of  sin  in  genere  and  in  specie  sufficient 
to  make  the  transgressor  accountable  is  not  treated  at 
length.  It  receives  comparatively  much  less  attention 
than  moral  volition.  But  that  is  easily  accounted  for  on 
the  general  ground  that  the  liberty  of  the  will  is  the 
more  attacked  because  it  is  the  more  difficult  object  of 
investigation.  Nor  is  the  fact  to  be  lost  sight  of  that 
Tertullian's  express  purpose  in  some  parts  of  his  works 
is  the  defense  of  the  free  will  against  heretical  doctrines. 

While  expressing  his  view  as  to  the  localization  of  in- 
telligence (i.  e.  of  the  soul  in  the  heart  of  man)  Ter- 
tullian gives  voice  to  his  opinion  concerning  the  prin- 
ciple of  intelligence  in  unmistakable  words.^  God  has 
revealed,  says  Tertullian  the  solution  to  the  question  con- 
cerning the  existence  of  a  directing  faculty  of  the  soul.=^ 
He  treats  here  the  place  of  the  soul.  It  would  be  out- 
side the  scope  of  the  present  investigation  to  treat  at 
any  length  this  localization  phase  of  Tertullian's 
psychology.  But  the  question  of  the  principle  of  intelli- 
gence will  be  better  understood  if  mention  is  made  of  the 
view  Tertullian  held,  namely  that  the  soul  resides  in  the 
heart.  Man  does  possess  "  a  supreme  principle  of  intelli- 
gence."^   Tertullian  deduces  that  proposition  from  sev- 


1  "Anim."  15. 

2  Ibid. 

3  Ibid. 


^ 


COGNITION  AND  VOLITION  57 

eral  texts  of  Sacred  Scripture.  In  his  view  the  texts  con- 
tain plain  references  to  the  part  the  intellect  is  required 
to  play  in  matters  of  morality.  "With  the  heart  man  be-~ 
lieveth  unto  righteousness,"*  and  "Why  think  ye  evil  in 
your  hearts?"^  are  the  principal  passages  he  brings  as 
proofs  from  divine  revelation  for  his  statement  that  God 
has  revealed  the  existence  of  intelligence.  From  the  con- 
text one  can  conclude  that  Tertullian's  object  in  adduc- 
ing these  texts  was  merely  to  prove  the  existence  of  an 
intelligence-principle  that  is  of  a  moral  cognition,  in  the 
soul.  It  was  plainly  not  his  object  to  show  the  necessity 
of  knowledge  as  a  prerequisite  for  moral  imputability, 
but  he  does  bring  just  those  texts  from  which  he  argued 
the  existence  of  an  intelligence-principle  because  of  its 
essential  connection  with  accountability. 

If  we  enter  into  the  details  of  his  argument,  we  find 
that  he  includes  under  the  head  of  intelligence  the  will 
also.  The  supreme  principle  in  the  soul  is  according  to 
Tertullian  intellectual  and  vital.  He  calls  this  principle 
also  the  directing  faculty  of  the  soul,  which  would  seem 
to  imply  that  he  did  not  at  the  time  wish  to  insist  on  a 
distinction  between  intellect  and  will  but  merely  aimed 
to  prove  the  existence  of  a  vital  principle  which  he  con- 
sidered predominantly  intellectual.  Though  the  terms 
he  uses  in  referring  to  the  principle  are  in  themselves 
more  applicable  to  the  will  (ruling,  directing),  the  very 
context  seems  to  give  conclusive  evidence  that  he  pur- 
posely omitted  mentioning  the  will  or  wished  to  compre- 
hend it  under  the  term  "vital  principle."  There  are  sev- 
eral passages,  as  we  shall  see  later,  in  which  he  shows  the 
existence,  nature,  influence,  and  importance  of  the  will. 
The  apparently  intentional  omission  of  any  explicit  men- 
tion of  the  blind  faculty  of  the  soul  and  the  repeated  in- 
sistence on  the  intellectuality  of  the  ruling  power,  the 
existence  of  which  he  bases  on  texts  inculcating,  princi- 
pally, accountability,  would  justify  the  conclusion  that 
he  stated,   at  least   implicitly,   the  prerequisiteness   of 

4  "Romans"  X,  lo. 

5  "Matthew"  IX,  4- 


58  COGNITION  AND  VOLITION 

knowledge  as  an  essentially  necessary  condition  for  acts 
that  lead  to  righteousness  or  condemnation.^ 

There  are  several  passages  in  Tertullian*s  works 
which  would  apparently  argue  against  the  conclusion  we 
have  drawn  in  the  preceding  lines.  In  the  introduction 
to  the  work  De  Spectaculis  he  speaks  of  sinning  through 
willful  or  real  ignorance.'^  His  request  is  that  Christians 
should  properly  consider  the  subject  of  shows  and 
thereby  come  to  a  real  knowledge  of  the  evil  that  lies  in 
certain  worldly  pleasures.  Sinning  through  willful  ig- 
norance is  readily  understood  as  sinning  through  un- 
justifiable vincible  ignorance.  The  principle  of  imputa- 
bility  because  of  voluntarium  in  causa  applies  to  willful 
ignorance.  Sinning  through  real  ignorance,  however,  is 
a  morality  view  of  Tertullian  which  must  be  considered 
in  the  proper  setting  if  we  would  not  accuse  his  Cath- 
olic mind  of  a  strange  inconsistency.  There  are  no  ex- 
plicit textual  references  with  which  we  could  explain  this 
view  of  Tertullian.  But  the  general  trend  of  the  argu- 
ment in  De  Spectaculis  will,  we  think,  offer  a  plausible 
solution  to  the  difficulty. 

We  do  not  consider  it  necessary  to  have  recourse  to 
the  explanation  that  by  sins  in  real  ignorance  Tertullian 
had  reference  to  material  sin.  Aside  from  the  fact  that 
Tertullian's  concept  of  material  sin  is  not  ascertainable 
even  in  vague  outlines,  there  seems  to  be  sufficient  rea- 
son in  the  first  chapter  of  De  Spectaculis  alone  to  con- 
sider the  sin  of  real  ignorance  as  a  formal  transgression. 
The  same  sentence  in  which  the  term  ignorando  appears 
is  a  request  that  those  who  have  testified  and  confessed 
and  have  had,  therefore,  a  thorough  acquaintance  of 
the  laws  of  Christian  discipline  review  the  reasons  why 

6  The  conclusion  drawn  from  Tertullian's  chapter  on  the  ex- 
istence and  localization  of  a  supreme  faculty  is  in  no  wise  affected 
by  his  literal  exegesis  of  the  Scriptural  texts  adduced.  "Anim." 
15.  The  substance  of  his  opinion  of  the  essential  connection  be- 
tween knowledge  and  transgression  is  plainly  discernible  even  in 
his  erroneous  interpretation. 

7  "Spect."  I.  Recognoscite,  qui  iam  accessisse  vos  testificati  et 
confessi  estis,  ne  aut  ignorando  aut  dissimulando  quis  peccet. 
Oehler  I,  p.  17. 


COGNITION  AND  VOLITION  59 

the  public  shows  are  forbidden.     It  would   appear  a 
^  rather  forced  supposition  to  assume  that  well  instructed^ 
Christians  should  ever  relapse  into  a  real  ignorance,  an 
ignorance  that  could  be  called  absolute  or  complete. 

If  we  assume,  however,  that  real  ignorance  is  equiva- 
lent to  unintentional  ignorance,  the  conclusion  is  not  far 
fetched  that  Tertullian  had  in  mind  those  Christians, 
who,  forgetful  of  a  specific  prohibition  of  spectacle 
pleasures,  were  nevertheless  inexcusable  because  of  the 
easily  applied  deductions  from  the  general  laws  concern- 
ing Christian  conduct.  This  supposition  taken  from  the 
context  is  supported  by  a  parallel  passage  in  the  Apolo- 
gy.  There  Tertullian  speaks  of  the  undutiful  members 
of  the  human  race  who  knew  God  in  part  and  neverthe- 
less gave  themselves  to  the  worship  of  false  gods.  For 
this  they  deserved  ill  at  God's  hand.  But  not  merely 
for  that.  They  continued  to  live  in  willful  ignorance  of 
the  Teacher  of  righteousness.^  Sin  grew  and  flourished 
as  a  result  of  willful  ignorance.  We  find  in  this  passage 
an  ignorance  mentioned  which  was  not  complete  but  in 
which  sin  was  imputable.  We  find  here  also  an  ignor- 
ance that  was  willful,  productive  of  all  vices  and  crime." 
The  text  on  sinning  in  ignorance  in  De  Spectaculis  I  has 
reference  to  Christians,  that  in  the  Apology  to  men  in 
general,  but  the  similarity  of  concepts  as  to  imputability 
in  both  passages  make  the  conclusion  plausible  that  by 
real  ignorance  is  meant  here  a  partial  ignorance,  not  a 
complete  lack  of  cognition.  According  to  Tertullian, 
therefore,  sin  without  knowledge  was  impossible.  Im- 
putability presupposed  at  least  some  knowledge  of  the 
wrongfulness  of  a  transgression. 

According  to  Tertullian  the  discernment  of  good  and 
evil  begins  at  about  the  fourteenth  year  of  life.  He 
quotes  Asclepiades  as  fixing  the  same  age  but  does  not 
accept  the  physician's  reason,  namely  the  beginning  of 
reflection.  Nor  does  he  allow  that  civil  legislation  re- 
ferring to  this  point  influenced  his  view.     The  age  of 

8  "Apol."  40- 

9  Ibid. 


60  COGNITION  AND  VOLITION 

discernment  was  a  matter  appointed  from  the  very  be- 
ginning of  mankind.'*'  The  sensation  of  shame  brought 
Adam  and  Eve  to  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil.''  The 
period  in  life  therefore  in  which  the  sensation  of  shame 
makes  its  appearance  should  be  considered  as  the  time 
in  which  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil  begins.  Ter- 
tullian  calls  that  period  the  puberty  of  the  soul'^  which 
coincides  with  the  puberty  of  the  body.'^ 

The  element  of  volition  in  imputability  receives  a 
much  lengthier  and  a  more  thorough  treatment  from 
Tertullian  than  the  element  of  cognition.  The  freedom 
of  the  will  as  a  prerequisite  condition  in  the  accepted 
sense  of  moral  responsibility  is  treated  ex  professo 
especially  in  the  books  against  Marcion.  There  are 
many  other  works  of  Tertullian  in  which  this  subject, 
though  mentioned  incidentally,  is  sufficiently  defined  and 
described  so  as  to  give  us  a  fair  insight  into  the  concept 
thereof.'* 

Tertullian  finds  the  image  and  likeness  of  God  in  man 
represented  by  nothing  so  well  as  by  the  freedom  of  the 
will."*  The  spiritual  essence  which  man  received  from 
God  and  the  free  will  express  man's  likeness  to  the  form 
of  God.'*  Tertullian  speaks  in  the  passages  here  under 
consideration  of  the  freedom  and  the  power  of  the  will.^^ 
The  repeated  distinction  between  freedom  and  power  of 

10  "Anim."  38.— Cf.  Engelbr^cht  in  "Wiener  Studien"  p.  142  sqq., 
Wien.,  1906. 

11  "Anim."  ibid. 

12  Tertullian  seems  to  realize  that  the  argument  of  parallelism 
is  somewhat  far  fetched,  because  Adam  and  Eve  sinned  first  and 
then  awakened  to  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil.  He  hints  at 
a  rather  insufficient  solution  of  the  difficulty  by  making  a  dis- 
tinction between  the  strictly  natural  concupiscence,  the  desire 
of  ailments,  and  the  sexual  concupiscence,  which  at  the  age  of 
puberty  "surpasses  the  appointment  of  nature."  "Anim,"  38. 
"Anf."  Vol.  Ill,  p.  219.  Oehler  II,  p.  620:  iam  non  ex  institute  na- 
turae, sed  ex  vitio. 

13  Ibid. 

14  D'Ales.  "La  Theol.  de  Tert."  p.  268  sqq. 

15  "Adv.  Marc."  II.  5. 

16  Ibid. 

17  Cf.  also  "Adv.  Marc."  II,  c.  6  passim. 


COGNITION  AND  VOLITION  61 

the  will  would  argue  that  Tertullian  had  some  purpose  in 
keeping  the  two  qualifications  of  will-nature  apart.  One 
passage  seems  to  indicate  that  he  means  by  the  power 
of  the  will  the  ability  to  render  obedience  to  the  law, 
and  by  liberty  of  the  will  the  possibility  of  transgres- 
sion. But  immediately  after  this  passage  we  have 
another,  in  which  Tertullian  apparently  realizes  that  the 
distinction  is  not  adequate  or,  at  least,  not  of  sufficient 
importance.  There  he  explicitly  extends  the  freedom  of 
the  will  to  resistance  and  obedience.^® 

The  reason  given  by  Tertullian  why  man's  likeness  to 
God  is  expressed  in  the  freedom  and  power  of  the  will 
is,  as  insinuated  by  Tertullian  himself,  an  argument  from 
analogy.'^  God  is  good  by  nature,  man  is  disposed  to 
good  by  creation.  But  that  man  might  acquire  a  good- 
ness by  nature  in  a  certain  sense,  God  gave  him  a  free 
will  wherewith  good  acts  could  be  performed  spon- 
taneously.^^ The  freedom  of  the  will  is  therefore  in  so  far 
a  constituent  element  in  man's  likeness  to  God  as  it 
makes  possible  for  man  to  acquire  and,  consequently,  pos- 
sess a  goodness  by  nature.  The  weak  point  of  the 
analogy  lies  in  the  difference  between  the  reality  of 
God's  own  goodness  and  the  possibility  on  the  part  of 
man  of  acquiring  goodness.  Tertullian  does  not  consider 
the  likeness  as  existing  in  the  freewill  of  God  and  of 
man.  His  terms  of  comparison  are  God's  goodness  by 
nature  and  man's  freewill  as  potentially  good  by  a  quasi- 
nature. 

Having  established  the  liberty  of  the  will  in  man  by 
deduction  from  the  likeness  and  the  image  of  God,  Ter- 
tullian considers  the  conclusion  that  the  freewill  alone  is 
to  be  held  chargeable  with  the  faults,  which  it  has  com- 
mitted, as  a  matter  of  course.    However,  the  chief  con- 

i8    "Adv.  Marc."  II,  c.  5,  also  c  6. 

19  In  a  certain  sense  a  natural  atrribute  of  goodness.    Cf.  ibid- 

20  "Adv.  Marc."  II,  c.  6. 


62  COGNITION  AND  VOLITION 

firmation  of  TertuUian's  argument,  perhaps  more  con- 
vincing than  the  argument  itself,  lies  in  the  considera- 
tion that  God  would  not  have  given  man  a  law  sanction- 
ed by  a  penalty,  were  it  not  within  the  power  of  man  to 
render  or  refuse  obedience.^^  Tertullian  refers  to  the 
will  as  a  faculty  that  is  independent.  It  is  a  natural  and 
mutable  faculty,^^  over  which,  however,  the  grace  of  God 
exercises  its  sway.^^  In  enumerating  the  faculties  of  the 
soul  he  mentions  the  freedom  of  the  will  first.^*  The 
power  to  determine  on  a  course  of  action  is  the  one  power 
that  rests  with  man.^^ 

In  reply  to  a  misinterpreted  contention  that  nothing 
is  done  without  the  will  of  God,  Tertullian  implies  that 
the  freedom  of  the  will  of  man  with  regard  to  sin  is  as 
fundamental  a  concept  as  that  of  God*s  existence.^^  The 
reason  why  the  one  concept  is  as  necessary  as  the  other 
is  that  God,  without  the  free  will  of  man,  would  be  doing 
things  He  did  not  will,"  in  other  words,  the  actually  oc- 
curring transgressions  of  God's  law  by  man  would  be 
caused  by  God  Himself.  Nor  does  the  devil  impose  on 
man  the  volition  to  sin.^^  He  merely  offers  the  materi- 
al.^^  Man  becomes  subject  to  the  devil  not  by  being 
forced  to  sin  but  by  granting  him  a  favorable  opportu- 
nity. Tertullian  knows  no  other  manner  of  sinning  ex- 
cept that  which  is  done  by  the  will.    He  does  not  want 

21  Ibid. — ^We  need  not  enter  here  on  Tertullian's  answers  to 
Marcion's  real  or  anticipated  objections.  The  substance  of  the  an- 
swers gives  no  new  reference  to  the  concept  of  personal  sin. — In 
"Anim."  21  Tertullian  calls  attention  to  his  demonstration  of  the 
existence  of  the  free  will. 

22  "Anim."  21. 

23  Ibid. 


24 

Ibid. 

25 

"Exh.  Cast."  2. 

26 

Ibid. 

^ 

Ibid. 

28 

Ibid. 

29 

Ibid. 

COGNITION  AND  VOLITION  63 

to  treat  of  sins  imputed  to  chance,  necessity  or  ignor- 
ance.^*^ 

It  is  an  act  of  injustice  to  compel  free  men  against 
their  will  to  offer  sacrifice.^ ^  Not  only  it  is  an  injustice, 
it  is  an  inconsistency,  an  absurdity.^^  Free  will,  not 
force,  should  lead  men  to  religion.^^  Falling  away  from 
religion  is  considered  involuntary  if  the  act  of  apostasy 
is  caused  by  violence,  ''the  ingenuities  of  butchery"  or 
"penal  inflictions."^^*  Tertullian  calls  such  apostates  sin- 
ners, involuntary,  however,  in  comparison  with  the  vol- 
untary sinners  of  the  flesh.  The  context  shows  that 
apostasy  even  when  forced  by  crushing  torture  is  still 
voluntary  though  much  more  excusable  than  other  sins. 
The  sin  of  fornication  is  shown,  by  contrast  with  the  sin 
of  apostasy,  to  be  a  transgression,  about  the  voluntari- 
ness of  which  Tertullian  sees  no  doubt.  Lust  is  exposed 
to  no  violence  except  itself,  it  knows  no  coercion.^^ 

In  the  passage  just  indicated,  Tertullian  seems  to  show 
at  least  a  vague  concept  of  the  various  degrees  of  voluv^ 
tarium.  The  voluntariness  by  which  one  consents  to  sin 
in  fear  of  violence  arising  from  an  external  cause  ap- 
peals to  Tertullian  as  evidently  much  less  imputable  than 

30  "Paen."  Ill,  11,  de  Labriolle  p.  12:  Viderint  enim,  si  qua  casui 
aut  necessitati  aut  ignorantiae  imputantur,  quibus  exceptis  jam 
non  nisi  voluntate  delinquitur — de  Labriolle  translates :  Viderint 
enim,  etc.,  quite  freely  with :  Admettons  que  certains  acts  soient 
imputables  au  hasard,  a  la  necessite  ou  a  I'ignorance. — Thelwall 
in  "Anf."  Vol.  3,  p.  659,  gives  the  version :  Let  them  see  to  them- 
selves.— Judging  from  Tertulian's  view  of  the  will,  as  explained 
even  in  his  Semi-Montanistic  "Exh.  Cast-"  and  from  the  context 
of  the  passage  in  "Paen."  3,  we  would  be  inclined  to  think  that  he 
considered  imputability  for  sin  as  necessarily  involving  a  free  will. 
The  sentence :  Viderint,  etc.,  is  parenthetically  inclosed  between 
the  question:  Quid  quod  voluntas  facti  origo  est?  and  the  appar- 
ently indisputable  assumption :  Cum  ergo  facti  origo  est.  The 
supposition  that  sin  could  be  imputed  to  any  other  cause  than  the 
free  will  is  discarded  in  an  oratorical  manner  that  leaves  little 
doubt  as  to  its  purpose.  The  relative  clause:  quibus  exceptis  jam 
non  nisi  voluntate  delinquitur,  belonging  to  the  parenthetical 
thought,  does  not  disprove  the  interpretation  given. 

31  "Apol."  28. 

32  Ibid. 

33  "Ad  Scap."  2. 

34  "Pud."  22. 

35  Ibid. 


64  COGNITION  AND  VOLITION 

the  voluntariness  wherewith  sin  is  consented  to  in  mere 
gratification  of  an  internal  inclination.  The  standard  of 
voluntariness  is  at  least  in  this  passage  Tertullian's  ulti- 
mate guide  in  judging  the  relative  gravity  of  sin.  The 
angels,  too,  that  fell,  did  so  of  their  own  free  will.^®  The 
concept  contained,  therefore,  essentially  the  prerequisite 
of  voluntariness,  whether  sin  was  committd  by  man  or 
by  angel." 

36  "Apol."  22. 

37  "Adv.  Marc."  IV,  c.  16,  in  nowise  impairs  the  deduction  from 
Tertullian's  works  that  he  had  a  consistently  correct  concept  of 
moral  volition.  In  the  chapter  just  quoted  the  incongruity  can  be 
shown  to  consist  in  the  lack  of  the  guiding  principle  of  reciprocal 
action,  usually  formulated  in  the  words  of  "Luke"  VI,  31 :  "As  you 
would  that  men  should  do  to  you,  do  you  also  to  them  in  like  man- 
ner." 


BEGINNINGS  OF  SIN  65 


CHAPTER  X. 

TERTULLIAN'S     VIEW     ON     THE     BEGINNINGS 

OF    SIN. 

The  usually  adduced  sources  of  temptations,  namely 
God's  permission  (tentatio  probationis) ,  the  devil,  the 
world  and  concupiscence  are  mentioned  explicitly,  and 
some  of  them  are  extensively  treated  in  Tertullian's 
works.  We  find  no  formal  definition  of  temptation  in  his 
writings,  but  he  has  given  us  sufficient  matter  to  con- 
strue as  adequate  a  concept  thereof  as  we  meet  in  ordin- 
ary textbooks  of  moral  theology. 

In  explanation  of  the  clause  in  the  Lord's  Prayer: 
"Lead  us  not  into  temptation,"  Tertullian  warns  us  not 
to  consider  the  Lord  as  the  direct  author  of  temptation.^ 
God  put  Abraham's  faith  to  the  test  not  for  the  sake  of 
tempting  him^  but  with  the  purpose  of  placing  before  us 
a  model  in  which  we  see  obedience  towards  God's  will 
and,  in  effect,  the  love  of  God  as  above  all  other  affections. 
Tertullian  conceives  the  trial  of  Abraham  a  probation, 
as  we  may  gather  from  the  wording:  non  temptandae, 
sed  probandae  fidei.^  The  clause  of  the  Our  Father  con- 
cerning temptation  Tertullian  considers  explained  by  the 
last  petition :  "Deliver  us  from  evil."*  The  evil  mention- 
ed in  the  clause  quoted,  would  be  merely  moral,  since 
temptation  and  evil  are  here  convertible  concepts  ac- 
cording to  Tertullian.  The  adversative  conjunction  that 
joins  the  two  classes  is  evidently  a  strong  support  for 
Tertullian's  interpretation.^ 

In  combating  the  idea  that  God  is  the  author  of  temp- 
tation Tertullian  recalls  the  passage  of  the  GospeP  in 

1  "Orat."  8. 

2  Ibid. 

3  Ibid. 

4  Devehe  nos  a  malo.  Ibid-  Oehler  I,  p.  563.  "Anf."  Vol.  3, 
p.  684. 

5  We  know  of  no  text  reading  that  would  favor  Thelwall's 
translation :  from  the  Evil  One.    "Anf."  Vol.  3,  p.  684. 

6  "Matth."  IV.  10,  "Luke"  IV.  8. 


66  BEGINNINGS  OF  SIN 

which  Christ  plainly  shows  who  is  the  praeses  and  the 
artifex  of  temptation.^  He  expatiates  on  the  distinction 
between  malum  culpae  and  mxilum  poerme.  Only  the 
latter  may  be  referred  to  God.^  Pharaoh's  denial  of  God, 
his  idolatry  and  other  sins  are  enumerated  as  the  evils 
of  guilt  which  are  justly  punished  by  the  evil  of  penalty, 
namely  the  hardening  of  heart.  The  evils  of  guilt  are 
morally  bad.  The  evils  of  penalty  are  compatible  with 
justice.^  Though  the  devil  is  shown  to  be  the  author  of 
moral  evil,  sufficient  emphasis  is  placed  on  the  doctrine 
that  man  in  transgressing  the  divine  law  is  the  willful 
contemner  thereof  and  as  such  is  held  responsible.  The 
conflict  between  the  concepts  of  the  devil's  authorship 
of  sin  and  man's  responsibility  for  wilful  contempt  of  di- 
vine law  is  only  apparent,  for  other  passages  in  Tertul- 
lian's  works  give  ample  proof  that  the  concepts  were 
well  kept  distinct. 

We  are  not  prepared  to  state  on  the  basis  of  Tertul- 
lian's  theologico-ethical  or  philosophico-ethical  termino- 
logy^" that  the  concepts  of  man  and  devil  as  causes  of 
sin  were  as  clearly  outlined  in  his  time  as  in  later 
periods.  Probably  less  direct  sin-causality  is  attributed 
to  the  devil  now  than  in  early  Christianity  because  of 
our  present-day  disinclination  to  ascribe  to  t^^eternatur- 
al  agencies  spiritual  phenomena  that  in  some  manner  or 
other  might  be  explained  by  natural  causality.  It  should 
be  remarked  however  that  there  is  enough  evidence  in 
Tertullian's  works  to  show  that  authorship  of  sin  on  the 
part  of  man,  in  so  far  as  the  beginning  of  sin  is  co-ex- 
tensive with  temptation,  was  considered  as  attributable 
to  natural  agencies.  ^^ 

Even  in  the  present  status  of  moral  theology  a  clearly 
outlined  scope  of  man's  causality  in  sin,  or  the  practical 

7  "Orat."  8. 

8  "Adv.  Marc."  II,  c.  14. 

9  Ibid. 

10  Cf.  "Adv.  Marc,  II,  c.  14;  "Anim."  21.  "Apol-"  14,  17,  23. 
"Bapt."  4,  20.  "Adv.  Marc."  II,  28.  "Pud."  6.  "Paen."  3.  "Pat."  5. 
"Cult.  Fern.'  I,  2.  II,  2,  9.  10,  12;  "Virg.  Vel."  2,  3,  7,  15-  "Carn. 
Christi."  7;  "Res.  Carn."  62.    Jej."  6.    "Pud."  19. 

11  "Anim."  20. 


BEGINNINGS  OF  SIN  67 

border  line  between  temptation  and  sin  proper,  remains 
a  desideration.  Theoretically,  of  course,  the  difficulty  is 
settled,  but,  as  in  other  morality  concepts,  the  practical 
concrete  application  of  the  concepts  of  sin-causality, 
authorship  of  sin,  extent  and  content  of  temptation  are 
matters  that  still  invite  discussion.  The  development  of 
moral  theology  in  the  field  of  sin-genesis  along  psycho- 
logical lines  will  probably  give  us  a  more  enlightened 
understanding  of  these  supremely  important  concepts, 
more  important  from  the  spiritual  disciplinary  stand- 
point than  from  a  merely  doctrinal  view.  The  theoreti- 
cally well-marked  distinction  between  temptation  and 
sin  was  not  stated  in  so  many  words  by  Tertullian, 
although  a  cursory  glance  at  the  texts  indicated  in  this 
chapter  show  that  the  traditional  Catholic  doctrine  on 
the  distinction  between  temptation  and  sin  was  as  well 
established  in  Tertullian^s  day  as  in  ours  . 

The  spirit  of  man  is  expressly  stated  as  the  author  of 
sin,^^  likewise  the  devil,^^  but  the  context  in  both  pas- 
sages annotated  places  beyond  cavil  that  the  concepts 
of  authorship  were  not  confused.  The  devil  is  mention- 
ed as  the  author  of  sin  in  contra-distinction  to  God.  The 
spirit  of  man  is  responsible  for  sin  in  opposition  to  the 
flesh  of  man.^*  The  difficulty  proper  as  to  what  the  devil 
contributes  to  sin  and  what  man  is  to  be  held  responsible 
for,  in  Tertullian's  opinion,  may  be  solved  by  the  consid- 
eration that  the  devil  is  the  author  of  temptation,  at 
least,  in  some  instances,  and  man  is  the  author  of  the 
consent  whereby  the  transition  is  made  from  temptation 
to  sin.^^ 

The  agencies  that  contribute  immediately  to  tempta- 
tion are  discussed  at  length  by  Tertullian  in  several 
works.  Practically  all  his  ascetico-moral  writings  deal 
in  some  places  expressly  of  the  subject  matter  that  forms 
the  substance  of  temptations,  such  as  sensual  fascination, 
seductive  ornamentation,  professions  or  positions  harm- 

12  "Adv.    Marc."    II,   28. 

13  "Adv.  Marc."  II,  c  14. 

14  Ibid. 

15  Ibid. 


68  BEGINNINGS  OF  SIN 

ful  to  faith  or  morals,  pagan  pleasures,  and  inter-mar- 
riage with  non-Christians.  It  may  be  worthy  of  notice 
here  that  TertuUian  drew  no  marked  line  of  distinction 
between  occasion  and  temptation  to  sin. 

The  source  of  temptation  which  TertuUian  treats  most 
extensively  is  that  of  sensuality.  His  detailed  exposition 
of  this  basis  of  temptation  is  worthy  of  serious  consid- 
eration from  a  theoretical  standpoint  because  of  the 
comparison  of  his  standards  with  those  of  present  day 
theologians,  as  well  as  from  a  practical  standpoint  be- 
cause of  the  educative  value  for  the  proper  adjudgement 
of  questions  relating  to  standards  or  principles  that 
have  no  tangible  constancy  in  everyday  life.  Sensuality, 
if  we  may  comprehend  thereby  sensual  or  carnal  prompt- 
ings, is  admittedly  a  subject  of  great  consequence  in 
practical  morality.  The  question  of  consent  or  refusal 
of  consent  to  carnal  promptings  is  of  vast  import  to  the 
practical  moralist,  to  the  directive  asceticist,  and  to  the 
conscience  that  seeks  enlightenment  on  the  difficulties 
usually  concomitant  with  the  border  line  conflicts  between 
the  sensual  and  spiritual.  The  manner  in  which  Tertul- 
lian  treats  of  the  nature  of  temptation  arising  from  this 
source  cannot  but  be  helpful  also  to  the  morality  theorist 
who  would  not  merely  draw  his  conclusions  as  to  carnal 
temptations  from  principles  valid  in  other  spheres  of 
morality  (e.  g.  pride,  avarice,  culpability  and  gravity 
thereof,  also  strength  of  temptations) ,  but  also  construct 
his  principles  after  making  observations  of  the  ordinary 
occurrences  in  the  development  of  such  carnal  tempta- 
tions (e.  g.  passion,  weakness,  occasion,  proximate  and 
remote) .  Tertullian's  treatment  of  the  various  subjects 
of  carnal  temptations,  reflect  of  course  his  concept  of 
sexual  sin  and,  consideratis  considerandis,  the  concept 
his  fellow  Christians  had  thereof. 

As  has  been  stated  above,  in  weighing  Tertullian's 
moral  opinions  due  allowance  must  be  made  for  his 
rigorism,  and  in  trying  to  construct  his  concept  of  sin 
from  his  treatment  of  the  origin  of  sin  due  consideration 
must  be  had  for  standards,  the  relativity  of  which  is 


BEGINNINGS  OF  SIN  69 

obviously  necessitated  by  times  and  temperament.  The 
views  of  the  present  day  moralist  on  propriety  in  dress, 
could  not  be  squared  with  Tertullian's,  except  along  the 
vague  lines  of  a  highly  generalized  principle.^^ 

For  a  virgin  to  go  about  unveiled,  would  expose  her 
and  those  she  meets  to  temptation.^^  Virginity  for  self 
protection  should  avoid  even  female  eyes.  The  angels 
fell  because  of  the  unveiled  virgin,  is  Tertullian's  cliam,^^ 
which  he  bases  on  Gen.  VI,  1,  2.  ^'Seeing  and  being  seen 
belong  to  the  self-same  lust."^^  This  severity  concern- 
ing the  unveiled  virgin  in  the  presence  of  women  has 
most  probably  the  meaning  that  she  should  avoid  envy, 
talk,  and  suspicion  concerning  her  good  character.  Even 
the  desire  to  go  about  unveiled  is  considered  immodest, 
for  non-concealment  is  plainly  "a  study  to  please  men.^^o 
By  the  veil  Tertullian  understands  a  cover  for  the  whole 
head,  reaching  down  to  the  robe  or  outer  cloak  of  the 
woman.^^  The  neck  should  be  encircled  and  hidden. 
From  one  part  of  the  context  it  would  appear  that  the 
veil  did  not  cover  the  face,^^  but  other  passages  give  suffi- 
cient proof  that  nothing  of  the  head  or  the  neck  was  to 
be  seen. 2^ 

Tertullian,  seeking  to  ward  off  criticism  of  his  appar- 
ently uncalled  for  strictness,  claims  that  his  views  are 
founded  on  revelations.^*  The  very  severity  of  a  shroud- 
ed, morose  face  should  break  any  evil  thought.  That 
the  Christian  women  were  not  convinced  however  of  the 
necessity  of  so  strict  a  discipline  is  evident  not  merely 
from  the  general  purpose  of  the  special  treatise  Virg. 
Vel.,  but  also  from  the  quite  explicit  accusation  that 
some,  amid  the  psalms  and  at  the  mention  of  God's 


i6  "Virg.  Vel."  "Cult.  Fern."  passim. 

17  "Virg.  Vel."  15. 

18  "Virg.  Vel."  7- 

19  "Virg.  Vel."  2. 

20  "Virg.  Vel."  14. 

21  "Virg.  Vel."  17. 

22  Ibid. 

23  "Virg.  Vel."   16. — Married  women,  too,  are  admonished   to 
follow  the  discipline  of  the  veil.    "Virg.  Vel."  17. 

24  Ibid. 


PA.    ^' 


70  BEGINNINGS  OF  SIN 

name,  remain  uncovered,  and  some,  at  the  time  of  pray- 
er, "place  a  fringe  or  a  tuft  or  any  thread  whatever  on 
the  crown  of  their  heads"  to  meet  the  dead  letter  of  the 
discipline.^^  Mothers,  sisters  and  virgin  daughters  are 
asked  to  observe  the  discipline  of  the  veil.  "All  ages  are 
imperilled  in  your  person."-®  The  discipline  should  be 
observed  in  the  church  and  on  the  street." 

While  the  motive  underlying  this  rigorism  of  Tertul- 
lian  was  to  some  extent  due  to  his  general  tendency  of 
tiying  to  fulfill  the  letter  of  the  law  in  an  abundance  of 
spirit,  and  while  the  Virg.  Vel.  belongs  to  his  Semi-Mon- 
tanistic  period,  or  at  least  to  the  transition  time  from 
orthodox  Catholicism  to  Semi-Montanisism,  we  can  see 
in  the  interpretation  of  the  veil  discipline  the  determina- 
tion of  this  most  ardent  defender  of  the  angelic  virtue. 

If  Tertullian's  treatise  Virg,  Vel.  leaves  us  too  uncer- 
tain as  to  his  fellow-Christians'  views  on  temptations  to 
carnal  sin  because  of  Semi-Montanistic  rigorism,  his 
Catholic  works  De  Cultu  Feminarum  and  Ad  Uxorem 
ought  to  be  a  considerably  safe  measure  of  his  opinion. 
Ornamentation,  consisting  in  the  care  of  the  hair,  of  the 
skin,  and  of  those  parts  of  the  body  which  attract  the 
eye,  is  equivalent  to  prostitution.^^  This  charge, 
obviously  an  oratorical  exaggeration,  is  tempered  with 
a  remark  that  would  tend  to  mitigate  the  rhetorical  out- 
burst, but  Tertullian  evidently  wishes  it  to  stand  in  full 
force  for  many  of  his  readers  or  hearers.  Most  women, 
he  claims, — and  here  we  easily  deduce  from  the  context 
that  he  means  the  women  of  his  Christian  audience,^^ — 
live  as  if  modesty  meant  merely  the  integrity  of  the 
flesh,  that  is,  abstinence  from  fornication.^^  The  accu- 
sation is  rather  grave  and  comprehensive  both  as  to  its 
substance  and  to  the  number  of  persons  accused.  One 
cannot  imagine  that  with  all  the  perfection  so  f requent- 

25  Ibid. 

26  "Virg.  Vel."  16. 

27  "Virg.  Vel."  13. 

28  "Cult.  Fern."  I,  c.  4. 

29  "Cult.  Fern."  II,  c.  i. 

30  "Cult.  Fern."  I,  c  2. 


BEGINNINGS  0*F  SIN  71 

ly  and  thoroughly  predicated  of  the  early  Christians  there 
were  so  widespread  an  "ignorance"  or  "dissimulation"^^ 
as  to  the  virtue  of  modesty  and  the  observance  of  such 
proprieties  in  external  appearance  as  have  recognized 
connection  therewith.  That  the  views  of  most  Chris- 
tian women  as  to  the  virtue  of  modesty  were  so  broad  as 
Tertullian  plainly  stated,  either  cannot  be  accepted  as 
a  statement  of  fact  and  consequently  must  be  stamped  a 
Tertullianic  overstatement,  or  must  be  interpreted  in 
the  sense  that,  with  some  allowance  for  the  exaggeration 
as  to  the  substance  of  the  accusation,  the  generally  adopt- 
ed attitude  of  a  large  number  of  Christian  women  on  the 
propriety  of  dress  and  ornamentation  was  not  repre- 
hensible nor  dictated  by  an  idealist. 

Tertullian's  rigorism  as  to  the  sense  of  propriety  is 
perhaps  attributable  to  his  lack  of  distinguishing  be- 
tween absolute  and  relative  susceptibility  to  temptation. 
While  this  distinction  seems  to  be  a  primary  postulate  of 
the  practical  moral  sense,  we  are  not  aware  that  it  found 
its  way  into  Tertullian's  quite  complete  concept  of  sin 
and  its  accessories.  That  we  would  be  justified  in  ex- 
pecting to  find  such  a  distinction  is  a  logical  inference 
from  the  nicety  of  distinction  applied  in  describing  Gen- 
tile modesty,  which  in  some  persons  is  not  willing  to  give 
way  to  sin  yet  not  quite  willing  to  refuse  consent.^^ 

Speaking  in  summary  propositions,  Tertullian  stresses 
that  studied  personal  grace  as  a  means  of  pleasing,  sen- 
sually, of  course,^^  does  not  spring  from  a  sound  con- 
science. The  statement  made  is  that  Christian  modesty 
condemns  as  sinful  such  studied  attractiveness,  and  the 
palpable  implication  is  that  such  attractiveness  does  not 
excite  to  lust.  Tertullian  does  not  accentuate  here  the 
intention  which  would  make  the  studied  gracefulness  an 
evil  independently  of  its  possible  or  real  tempting  quali- 
ty. And  the  intention  is  admittedly  the  one  absolute  fac- 
tor in  questions  concerning  standards  or  ideals  of  mod- 

31  "Cult.  Fern.'  I,  c.  i. 

32  "Cult.  Fern."  II,  c.  i. 

33  Ibid.  c.  2. 


72  BEGINNINGS  OF  SIN 

esty  which  are  undoubtedly  to  some  extent  a  matter  of 
relativity. 

Even  natural  grace  must  be  concealed  and  neglected 
because  of  its  power  to  excite  temptation.  Tertullian 
senses  however  the  difficulty  which  lies  in  the  considera- 
tion that  natural  homeliness,  "an  additional  outlay  of 
the  divine  plastic  art"  cannot  be  condemned.  If  studied 
grace  is  but  an  imitation  of  natural  beauty,  it  were  im- 
possible to  see  any  wrong  in  the  imitation,  if  we  abstract 
from  intention.  A  rather  unsatisfactory  solution  is  giv- 
en by  Tertullian,  for  he  says  that  natural  beauty  though 
not  to  be  censured  is  still  to  be  feared,^*  on  account  of 
the  injuriousness  and  the  violence  of  "suitors".  Tempta- 
tion against  chastity  as  such  is  not  considered  as  an  evil 
which  might  follow  from  permitting  natural  beauty  in 
external  appearance  to  show  itself  to  the  "glances  of 
eyes."^^ 

With  all  the  assertiveness  in  his  views  on  natural 
beauty  and  temptation,  Tertullian  seems  to  admit  the 
possibility  of  a  different  view.  According  to  him  the 
use  and  fruit  of  beauty  is  voluptuousness.  In  support- 
ing his  view  however  he  apparently  shifts  to  more  ten- 
able ground,  and  speaks  of  women  who  augment  natural 
beauty  or  "strive  after  it  when  not  given."^^  For  the  sake 
of  argument  he  admits  the  alternative,  pride  or  "glory  in 
the  flesh."  For  such  a  glory  he  sees  no  justification,  ex- 
cept when  the  flesh  "has  been  lacerated  for  the  sake  of 
Christ."  He  concludes  his  argumentation  by  repeating 
his  advice  to  women  who  are  gifted  with  natural  beauty : 
Non  ddiuvare,  sed  impedire.^'' 

It  would  be  interesting  to  see  the  analytical  mind  of 
Tertullian  meet  these  problems  concerning  sexual  temp- 
tations in  a  cool  argumentative  way  and  not  by  the  meth- 
od of  rhetorical  exaggeration.  That  many  Christians 
measured  these  problems  from  a  different  angle  than  did 

34  Ibid. 

35  "Cult.  Fern."  II,  c.  2. 

36  Ibid.,  c.  3. 

37  Ibid. 


BEGINNINGS  OF  SIN  78 

their  leader  Tertullian,  is  quite  conclusively  demon- 
strable from  the  insistence  with  which  he  preached 
modesty,  then,  too,  from  his  Montanistic  dispute  with 
the  Psychics  on  the  remissibility  of  sexual  sins. 

By  way  of  diversion  Tertullian  treats  at  greater 
length  than  would  a  modern  morality  textbook  of  the 
doubt  as  to  the  permissibility  of  studied  comeliness  on 
the  part  of  married  women.  Their  plea  of  pleasing  the 
husbands  is  not  sufficient  to  depart  from  the  principle 
that  modesty  must  be  preserved  at  all  costs.  The  Chris- 
tian husbands  are  not  captivated  by  beauty  "because  we 
are  not  captivated  by  the  same  graces"  as  the  Gentiles.^* 
A  non-Christian  husband  will  regard  with  suspicion  any 
attempt  at  pleasing,  he  does  not  believe  in  beauty  on  the 
part  of  a  Christian  wife  unless  it  be  artless. 

It  might  be  of  interest  to  consider  the  manner  in 
which  Tertullian  applies  his  general  principles,  if  we 
may  call  them  such,  when  treating  in  detail  of  the  ques- 
tion of  ornamentation.  The  question  was  as  live  a  one 
in  the  days  of  Tertullian  as  in  ours  because  of  its  vital 
connection  with  difficulties  in  determining  the  permis- 
sible and  the  non-permissible  in  matters  sensual. 

Dyeing  the  hair  is  an  act  of  temerity,  spoiling  "the  op- 
portunity of  sobriety."  To  put  the  hair  up  in  various 
studied  ways  is  against  the  command  "be  veiled."^^  Good 
simplicity  should  be  the  guiding  rule.  No  plain  refer- 
ence is  made  to  any  other  reason  for  observing  simplicity 
than  that  of  avoiding  waste  of  time.  These  same  re- 
marks on  the  arrangement  of  the  hair  hold  for  man.  In 
him,  too,  by  a  defective  nature  is  implanted  the  desire 
to  please  those  of  the  other  sex.*^  As  to  clothing  and  the 
other  impedimenta  compositionis  too  redundant 
splendor  must  be  avoided.  "Meritricious  and  prostitu- 
tioning  garbs  and  garments"  must  not  be  used,  and  by 
such  garbs  and  garments  he  understands  the  clothing 

38  Ibid.,  c.  4- 

39  "Cult.  Fern."  II,  c.  7. 

40  Ibid. 


74  BEGINNINGS  OF  SIN 

that  supports  or  supplies  natural  beauty.  An  exception 
in  the  use  of  "gorgeous  array"  is  admitted  for  people 
who  because  of  riches,  birth,  or  position  are  compelled 
to  appear  richly  ornamented  in  public.  This  exception  is 
merely  a  matter  of  tolerance.  Those  concerned  are  ask- 
ed to  temper  "an  evil  of  this  kind."*^ 

Tertullian  apparently  quotes  a  definition  of  scandal 
which  almost  coincides  with  the  one  usually  given  by 
authors  of  moral  theology:  Scandalum  est  dictum  vel 
factum  minus  rectum  praebens  alicui  occasionem  ruinae 
spiritualise  Tertullian's  version  of  it  is :  Scandalum  nisi 
faUor,  non  bonae  rei,  sed  malae  exemplum  est,  aedifl- 
cans  ad  delictum,^^  We  could  not  expect  much  exactness 
in  the  explanation  of  this  definition  since  it  is  quite  in- 
cidental to  the  subject  matter  treated.  "Good  things 
scandalize  none  but  the  evil  mind."*^  The  context 
demonstrates  that  by  good  things  are  meant  virtues, 
such  as  modesty,  contempt  of  glory,  and  points  to  what 
would  now  be  called  Scandalum  pharisaicum.  The  concept 
of  temptation  to  sin  as  we  have  shown  it  to  have  existed 
in  the  mind  of  Tertullian  contains  much  that  pertains  to 
scandal,  since  scandal  is  temptation  as  existing  in  the 
cause. 


41  Ibid.,  c  9. 

42  "Virg.  Vel."  3- 

43  Ibid. 


TERTULLIAN'S  DIVISIONS  OP  SIN  75 


CHAPTER  XI.  _ 

VARIOUS  VIEWS   ON  TERTULLIAN^S  DIVISIONS 

OF  SIN. 

The  following  pages  are  devoted  to  a  brief  summary 
of  the  views  non-Catholic  and  Catholic  authors  have  pro- 
pounded on  the  concept  of  grievous  and  light  sin  in  the 
works  of  Tertullian.  As  will  be  seen,  we  mention  merely 
the  more  important  writers  on  the  subject.  It  would  be 
of  no  avail  to  summarize  the  articles  in  the  various 
theological  reviews  that  have  mentioned  the  Tertullianic 
concept  of  personal  sin,  grievous  and  venial.  To  our 
knowledge  the  subject  has  been  treated  merely  in  connc- 
tion  with  other  aspects  of  sin,  principally  the  remissibili- 
ty  or  non-remissibility  of  sin.  The  real  content  of  the  con- 
cept of  the  distinction  between  mortal  and  venial  sin  has 
been  set  aside  as  foreign  to  the  discussions  of  other  as- 
pects, as  by  Catholic  authors,  or  the  distinction,  as  it 
existed  in  accordance  with  Catholic  doctrine  has  been 
simply  denied,  as  by  non-Catholic  authors. 

Preuschen^  treats  the  subject  of  personal  sin  and  the 
distinction  between  sins  of  various  degrees  as  presented 
in  the  two  works,  De  Paenitentia  and  De  Pudicitia.  The 
work  Paen,  shows  no  distinction  between  remissible  and 
irremissible  sin.=^  It  is  evident  from  Preuschen's  chapter 
on  sins  in  the  work  referred  to  that  his  scope  does  not 
comprise  venial  sin.^  A  relative  gravity  of  sins  however 
existed.  But  the  faithful  had  not  as  yet  applied  the 
biblical  concept  of  mortal  sin — ^presumably  the  one  of  I 

1  "Tertullian's  Schriften  de  paenitentia  und  de  pudicitia  mit 
Ruecksicht  auf  die  Bussdisziplin."  Giessen,  1890. 

2  Preuschen  uses  the  term  laesslich  for  remissible  and  nicht- 
laesslich  for  irremissible.  In  Catholic  theology  the  German  word 
laesslich  corresponds  to  our  English  term  venial. 

3  The  delicta  cotidiana  of  "Pud-'  19  are  considered  as  grave  in 
content.    Preuschen,  op.  cit.,  p.  22. 


76  TERTULLIAN'S  DIVISIONS  OF  SIN 

^  John  V,  16 — ^to  any  sins.  Thus  Preuschen.*  For  the 
present  we  would  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  Tertul- 
lian  alone  gave  I  John  V.  16,  that  peculiar  concept  of  ir- 
remissible  mortal  sexual  sin.  There  is  no  argument 
from  Tertullian's  text  to  show  that  the  Christians  of  his 
time  had  a  concept  that  corresponded  to  the  one  con- 
structed by  him  on  the  text  mentioned.  In  fact,  the 
method  of  argumentation  of  Tertullian  in  Pud.  19  rela- 
tive to  I  John  V,  16,  as  we  shall  show  later,  is  so  forced 
that  it  were  not  at  all  rash  to  assume  that  the  faithful  or 
even  the  admirers  of  Tertullian  did  not  accept  his  exe- 
gesis of  this  scriptural  passage. 

Kohler  in  his  article  on  Catholicism^  considers  mortal 
sin  the  equivalent  of  capital  sin  or  principal  sin,  a  ter- 
minology that  finds  its  counterpart  perhaps  its  origin, 
according  to  him,  in  Tertullian's  works.  Incidentally, 
the  article  misrepresents  the  Catholic  distinction  be- 
tween mortal  and  venial  sin. 

Holl  in  his  article  on  Busswesen^  considers  mortal  sin 
in  the  first  century  as  opposed  to  sins  committed  in  ig- 
norance. This  concept,  Holl  claims,  developed  from  the 
realization  that  sin  existed  in  Christianity  despite  the 
absolute  com.mand  that  the  faithful  remain  free  from  all 
sin  and  preserve  their  baptismal  seal  pure  and  unbroken. 
He  quotes  II  Clem.  VI,  9,  VIII,  6,  Ignatius  ad  Polycarpum 
VI,  2,  Hermas  mand.  IV,  1,  8,  and  III,  1,  to  show  the 
idealistic  concept  the  early  Christian  had  of  perfection 
especially  in  its  negative  phase,  i.  e.,  refraining  from  all 
sin.     His  references  to  I  Cor.  5  Did.  IV,  Did.  XIV,  1, 

4  Preuschen's  division  of  sins  as  enumerated  by  Tertullian  dis- 
pleases Rolffs  to  some  extent  (Tu.  XI),  who  contends  that  Ter- 
tullian's  division  of  sins  (Pud.  2  and  21)  into  those  against  God 
and  those  against  the  neighbor  was  made  merely  to  interpret: 
dimitte  et  dimittetur  tibi.  Rolffs  rightly  calls  attention  to  the 
fact  that  sins  agains  a  fellow  being  are  also  sins  agains  God. 
He  consequently  takes  exception  to  Preuschen's  conclusion :  the 
remission  of  sins  against  a  fellow  being  through  him  is  a  com- 
plete one  and  hence  needs  not  the  approval  of  God,  i-  e.  through 
the  organs  of  the  Geistesgemeinde. 

5  "Die  Religion  in  Geschichte  und  Gegenwart,"  Vol.  Ill,  col. 
1035.  3rd  ed.,  Tuebingen,  1912. 

6  "Die  Religion,"  etc..  Vol.  I,  coll.  1462,  1463.  Cf.  "Apoc."  XXII, 
15- 


TERTULLIAN'S  DIVISIONS  OF  SIN  77 

James  V,  16,  disprove  his  statements  that  the  first  Chris- 
tians had  no  concept  of  penance  after  baptism,  that  is,  a 
second  baptism,  and  consequently,  as  he  implies,  no  con- 
cept of  mortal  or  venial  sin.  The  realization  that  sin  ex- 
isted among  the  Christians  brought  forth,  he  claims,  an 
effort  to  conciliate  the  idealistic  view  with  actual  facts. 
Hence  the  distinction  between  sins  of  ignorance  and 
mortal  sins  (mortal  here  not  in  the  Catholic  sense  but 
in  the  alleged  sense  of  I  John  V,  16  and  I  Clem.  II,  3). 

Another  means  to  conciliate  the  ideal  and  the  real  in 
Christian  life  was,  he  claims,  the  establishing  of  a  high- 
er ideal  and  a  lower  ideal,  which  latter  was  adapted  to 
the  average  Christian.  Holl  refers  in  a  general  way  to 
Did.,  to  ,  II  Clem,  and  to  Hermas.  It  should  be  noted 
that  he  refers  to  II  CleTn.  and  HermAis  in  his  effort  to 
prove  the  statement  that  the  first  Christian  knew  noth- 
ing of  the  necessity  of  such  a  conciliation,  namely,  be- 
tween the  ideal  and  the  real.  To  quote  the  same  sources 
for  contradictory  concepts  without  any  further  limita- 
tion or  explanation  is  unfair  in  the  author  and  mislead- 
ing to  the  reader  who  presupposes  impartial  investiga- 
tion and  honest  statement  of  results.  Then,  presumably, 
in  the  time  of  Tertullian,  (no  special  references  are  giv- 
en by  Holl,)  the  concept  of  mortal  sin  was  narrowed 
down  to  "the  three  gravest  sinful  deeds'*,  idolatry,  mur- 
der, adultery.  From  the  content  of  the  article,  mortal 
sins  are  apparently  considered  as  irremissible.  Peccata 
graviora  are  also  mentioned  by  Holl  as  belonging  to  the 
time  of  Tertullian.  They  were  not  however  of  the  same 
gravity,  he  claims,  as  the  three  irremissible  sins.  No 
statement  is  made  as  to  what  concept  of  sinfulness  the 
peccata  graviora  represented.  Lighter  sins  are  men- 
tioned incidentally  but  without  any  reference  to  their 
conceptual  content. 

Rolffs  calls  attention^  to  the  contradictory  enumeration 
of  sins  made  by  Tertullian  in  Pvd.  c.  2  and  c.  19,  namely 
in  c.  2  remissible  sins  i.  e.  after  a  period  of  penance  and 

7    "Das  Indulgenz-Edikt  des  Papstes  Callixtus,"  "Tu.*'  Vol.  II, 
pp.  41  sqq. 


78  TERTULLIAN'S  DIVISIONS  OF  SIN 

irremissible  sins  i.  e.  those  for  which  there  existed  no 
ecclesiastical  pardon.  TJie  latter  comprehended  mur- 
der, idolatry  and  adultery.  To  the  former  class  be- 
longed all  other  sins.  In  Pvd.  c.  19  he  finds  Tertullian 
mentioning  homicide,  idolatry,  deceit,  denial,  blas- 
phemy, adultery  and  fornication  and  other  violations  of 
the  temple  of  God  as  the  same  "mortal"  sins  enumerated 
by  Tertullian  in  Adv,  Marc,  IV,  9,  as  delicta  capitalia 
with  "one"  modification:  falsum  testimonium  for  nega- 
tio  (also  TTioechia  for  adulterium  and  stuprum  for  fomi- 
catio).  The  outstanding  feature  of  these  mortal  sins  is 
that  they  are  committed  against  God  or  His  temple. 
Rolffs  considers  "temple"  here  equivalent  to  the  Chris- 
tian community.  May  we  not  suppose  that  Tertullian  is 
interpreting  templum  in  matters  of  chastity  according 
to  the  Pauline  concept  i.  e.  the  body  of  the  individual? 
And  then  homicidium,  adulterium  and  stuprum  are  pri- 
marily and  immediately  sins  against  the  body^  In  the 
same  chapter  (i.  e.  Adv,  Marc.  IV,  9),  templum  is  used 
in  comparison  with  ecclesia.^  There  is  surely  no  con- 
clusive evidence  from  this  comparison  that  templum  dei 
meant  the  "congregation"  and  not  the  body. 

Rolffs  considers  the  attempt  to  conciliate  the  two  ap- 
parently contradictory  passages  from  Tertullian's  Pud. 
c.  2  and  c.  19  as  useless  and  vain.  The  two  classifications 
are  viewed  by  Tertullian  from  two  different  angles.  In 
c.  2  Tertullian  wishes  to  show  that  the  practice  of  the 
Church  to  forgive  certain  sins  after  sufficient  penance 
and  to  censure  others  with  life  long  excommunication 
was  in  harmony  with  Scripture.  In  the  other  chapter 
Tertullian  tries  to  conciliate  I  John  1,  8  and  III,  9  by  his 
explanation  of  I  John  V,  16,  as  concerning  the  irremis- 
sible and  the  remissibe  sins.  The  latter,  Rolffs  claims, 
were  of  no   practical   import  to   Tertullian   since   the 

8  D'Ales,  "La  Theol.  de  Tert."  p.  274.  "L'Edit  de  Call."  p.  209. 
D'Ales  refers  to  "Ep.  Barn."  4,  h,  "Ign.  Ad  Philed."  7,  2,  II  "Clem." 
9,  3.  "Cult.  Fern."  2,  i 

9  "Anf."  calls  this  the  first  use  of  the  word  ecclesia  in  the  sense 
of  church. 


TERTULLIAN'S  DIVISIONS  OF  SIN  79 

Church  discipline  at  his  time  was  not  concerned  with 
the  sins  of  everyday  life. 

The  three  classes  of  sin  in  Pud,  (Rolffs  is  not  concern- 
ed with  classifications  of  sin  given  in  any  other  work  of 
Tertullian,)  are  1)  daily  sins  of  no  further  import  for 
the  question  of  penance,  2)  sins  which  can  be  remitted 
after  public  penance,  3)  "mortal"  sins  that  exclude  for- 
ever from  the  Christian  community,  namely  the  sins  of 
murder,  idolatry  and  adultery.  (As  already  indicated 
above,  "mortal"  here  has  not  the  meaning  which  Catho- 
lic theology  attaches  to  the  term.)  Rolffs  calls  the  first 
class  Fehltritte,  the  second  Vergehen,  the  third  Tod^ 
suenden.^^  The  second  group  is  not  divided  from  the 
other  two  by  a  well-marked  line."  A  definite  rule 
whereby  the  sins  of  the  first  class  can  be  definitely  and 
safely  distinguished  from  those  of  the  second  cannot  be 
established.  This  is  evident  according  to  Rolffs.  The  rea- 
sons he  gives  are  as  follows :  Difficulty  of  distinguishing 
safely  between  facile  maledicere  and  blasphemia,  fidem 
pacti  destruere  and  fraics,  temere  iurare  and  necessitate 
mentiri  and  false  witnessing.  Every  blasphemy,  he  says, 
can  become  a  negatio.  Also,  idololatria,  moechia,  forni- 
catio  and  homiddium  are  changing  concepts.  He  refers 
to  the  treatise  De  Idololatria  to  show  how  varied  the  ap- 
plication of  the  concept  of  idolatry  was  in  theory  and  in 
practice.  The  concept  of  homicide  is  more  definite  than 
that  of  idolatry,  that  of  moechia  and  fomicatio  more  ex- 
act that  the  concept  of  murder.^^ 

Recapitulating  the  remissible  sins,  Rolffs  states  that 
they  comprise  sins  that  are  committed  against  God  or 
constitute  a  violation  of  the  temple  of  God,  or  cause  pub- 
lic scandal,  then  too,  the  sins  of  everyday  life  if  they  give 
public  scandal,  even  the  mildest  forms  of  idolatry  and  of 
murder.  Fomicatio  and  moechia  always  belong  to  the 
irremissible  sins.  It  is  difficult  to  understand  Rolffs' 
method  of  interpretation  of  Tertullian's  various  classes  of 

10  Cf.  Rolffs,  op.  cit.,  p.  46,  note  2;  Preuschen,  op.  cit.,  pp.  34  sqq. 

11  Loc.  cit.  p.  47. 

12  "Pud."  22,  "Cyprian  Ep."  55,  c.  26. 


!80  TERTULLIAN'S  DIVISIONS  OP  SIN 

sin  in  Pud,  If  more  references  had  been  given  in  sup- 
port of  his  statements  his  investigation  would  have  un- 
doubtedly gained  in  value. 

Windisch'^  finds  in  Tertullian's  work  Paen,  no  refer- 
ence to  lesser  and  greater  sins.  Penance  is  necessary 
for  all  kinds  of  sin.  Sins  of  thought  and  deed  alike  are 
to  be  avoided  or  atoned  for.  Referring  to  Pvd,  19,  Win- 
disch  finds  Tertullian  writing  on  laessliche  Suenden,  He 
considers  Tertullian's  explanation  of  I  John  V,  16,  I  John 
III,  3  to  8  and  I  John  1,  8,  as  correct  in  practice,  perhaps 
even  necessary,  but  not  in  harmony  with  the  original 
meaning  of  the  texts  quoted,  that  is,  not  according  to  the 
exposition  he  (Windisch)  has  given.'*  What  corresponds 
objectively  to  the  concept  of  mortal  sin  in  the  mind  of 
Tertullian,  he  does  not  state,  but  in  the  use  of  the  terms 
Todsuende  and  Laessliche  Suende  he  seems  to  follow 
other  non-Catholic  writers  (Preuschen  and  Rolffs.) 

Worman'^  asserts  that  Protestants,  like  the  Christians 
of  the  Apostolic  and  Patristic  age,  distinguish  between 
peccata  graviora  and  leviora.  The  early  Christians,  he 
claims,  knew  nothing  of  venial  sins.  Their  concept  of 
venial  and  mortal  sins  meant  nothing  more,  at  least  ac- 
cording to  the  passages  in  which  these  terms  occur,  than 
the  requirement  or  non-requirement  of  penance.  His 
statements  refer,  presumably,  also  to  the  time  and  the 
works  of  Tertullian. 

Lea  in  his  History  of  Confession  and  Indulgences^^ 
writes:  "The  Montanist  rigor  of  Tertullian,  on  the 
strength  of  the  text  I  John  V,  16,  divided  sins  into  re- 
missible and  irremissible."  "St.  Augustine  seems  to  be 
the  first  to  take  note  of  venial  sins." 


13  Windisch,  "Taufe  und  Busse  bei  Tertullian/'  p.  417,  Tuebin- 
gen,  1908. 

14  This  exposition,  given  principally  on  page  271,  states  in  effect 
that  St.  John  considers  the  sin  of  a  Christian  a  problem  and  dis- 
tinguishes between  light  and  grievous  sins,  w^hich  distinction  W. 
claims  oatural,  as  it  was  taken  over,  according  to  W.,  from  Juda- 
ism. Tertullian,  according  to  W.,  knows  no  advice  as  to  mortal 
sins. 

15  "Cyclop,  of  Bibl.  Theol.  and  Eccl.  Literature,"  Vol.  VI,  p.  658, 
New  York,  1876. 

16  Vol.  II,  p.  235'  Philadelphia'  1896. 


TERTULLIAN'S  DIVISIONS  OF  SIN  81 

Catholic  authors  enumerate  the  various  divisions  of 
sins  as  given  by  Tertullian  and  according  to  their  view 
and  purpose  place  them  in  various  classes.  Esser^^  gives 
the  following  classification  of  the  sins  mentioned  in  Pud, 
1)  Capitalia  seu  mortalia  quia  irremissibilia,  such  that 
exclude  for  life  from  the  Church.  2)  Such  sins  that  ex- 
clude ad  tempus  from  the  Church,  remissUibia,  delicta 
levoria  or  modica,  Pud,  c.  7  and  perhaps  c.  19.  3)  Sins 
that  are  of  so  small  importance  that  they  are  remitted 
immediately  without  any  public  penance.  These  sins 
Tertullian  compares  with  the  little  drachma.^^  4)  Mon- 
stra,  non  sunt  delicta.  We  would  not  consider  the 
peccata  mediocria  as  immediately  remissible  from  Pud. 
19.  The  very  rigorism  of  Tertullian's  Montanistic  views 
would  seem  to  militate  against  the  assumption  that  sins 
as  grievous  as  mediocria  could  in  all  instances  be  remit- 
ted without  an  intermediary  agency. 

D'Ales  is  much  more  explicit  in  his  treatise  La  Theol, 
de  Tert,  on  the  concept  of  sin  in  the  works  of  Tertullian. 
He  devotes  several  pages  to  the  consideration  of  this 
topic  and  sums  up  his  research  with  the  following  enu- 
meration of  Tertullian's  Montanistic  classification  of 
sin:  1)  Venial  faults  which  do  not  incur  canonical  pun- 
ishment.^^ He  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  "venial" 
has  not  the  meaning  in  Tertullian's  theology  that  it  has 
in  later  periods.  2)  Graver  faults,  subject  to  penance, 
remissible  through  the  ministry  of  the  bishop,  such  as 

17  "Die  Bussschriften  Tertullians'  De  Paenitentia  und  de  Pu- 
dicitia  und  das  Indulgenzedikt  des  Papstes  Kallistus."  Programme 
of  the  University  of  Bonn,  1905,  p.  16,  footnote. 

18  "Pud."  c.  7.  We  would  not  want  to  assert  that  this  distinc- 
tion is  Tertullian's.  He  is  undoubtedly  quoting  a  real  or  supposed 
adversary  and  in  the  course  of  the  quotation  is  merely  stating  a 
possible  concept  of  what  the  drachma  represents.  It  is  not  evi- 
dent, from  the  concept,  that  sins  of  moderate  character,  which  are 
compared  with  the  drachma,  are  remitted  immediately  without 
any  public  penance-  The  contrary  seems  to  be  more  likely  since 
the  adversary  quoted  tries  to  bring  even  adultery  and  fornication 
into  comparison  with  the  drachma.  Tertullian  objects  that  the 
comparison  is  forced.  The  adulterers  and  fornicators  according 
to  Tert.  are  to  be  compared  with  a  talent. 

19  D'Ales'  op.  cit.,  p.  275. 


82  tertullian's  divisions  of  sin 

sins  committed  through  frailty^^  3)  Mortal  and  irremis- 
sible  sin,  namely,  idolatry,  impurity,  homocide.  D'Ales 
does  not  enter  into  the  question  as  to  whether  Tertullian 
had  a  precise  concept  of  mortal  and  venial  sin.  The 
nearest  he  approaches  to  the  question  is  in  a  statement 
referred  to  in  a  footnote  concerning  the  term  venial.  In 
his  later  work,  UEdit  de  Calliste,  he  treats  at  consider- 
able length^^  of  Tertullian's  doctrines  concerning  the  ir- 
remissible  sins.  Sin  as  committed  directly  against  God 
receives  a  brief  but  clear  exposition.-^  Although  we  do 
not  find  any  discourse  on  the  distinction  between  mortal 
and  venial  sin  in  the  works  of  D'Ales,  we  see  nowhere 
the  conclusion  even  insinuated  that  Tertullian  held  a 
heretical  view  concerning  the  distinction. 

Rauschen^^  speaks  of  the  concept  of  mortal  and  venial 
sin  in  several  passages  of  his  excellent  work  Eucharist 
and  Penance.  He  seems  to  imply  that  in  the  early 
Church  miortal  and  capital  were  convertible  terms.^*  He 
states  that  the  definition  of  mortal  sin  was  not  every- 
where the  same.^^  He  had  perhaps  in  mind  the  practical 
application  of  the  concept  among  the  faithful.  Schanz 
is  quoted  as  saying:-^  "The  distinction  between  peccata 
venialia  and  mortalia  had  not  yet  been  exactly  determin- 
ed." Presumably  the  practical  distinction  is  meant.  In 
the  retrospect  of  his  treatise  on  penance  Rauschen  writes 

20  Ibid.  Fautes  plus  graves,  encourant  une  penitence  plus  ou 
moins  rigoureuse,  d'ailleurs  remissibles  par  le  ministere  de  !'■ 
eveque :  ce  sont  des  fautes  de  fragilite,  auxquelles  nul  n'echappe 
entierement.  We  confess  surprise  at  this  statement  of  D'Ales. 
We  fail  to  find  any  text  in  Tertullian  that  would  serve  as  a  basis 
for  the  opinion  of  D'Ales.  If  such  offenses  were  unavoidable,  and 
if  every  Christian  at  some  period  of  life  lost  the  grace  of  God  by 
committing  one  or  more  of  these  peccata  graviora,  TertuUian's 
view  of  Christian  perfection  must  have  been  contradictorily  op- 
posite to  the  view  of  perfection  implied  in  his  explanation  of  pen- 
ance. 

21  "L'fidit  de  Calliste,"  pp.  197-208. 

22  Op,  cit.,  pp.  208  sqq. 

23  Op.  cit.,   Eng.  transl.  of  2nd  Germ,   ed.,  Freiburg  (Baden), 
1913. 

24  Op.  cit.,  p.  189. 

25  Op.  cit.,  p.  234. 

26  "Die  Lehre  v.  d.  hi.  Sakr.,"  p.  575. 


TERTULLIAN'S  DIVISIONS  OF  SIN  83 

that  some  authors  narrowed  the  concept  of  mortal  sin, 
others  widened  it.^^ 

Bruders-^  claims  that  early  Christianity  in  practice 
made  a  clear  distinction  between  venial  and  grievous  sin. 
He  adduces  the  following  text  from  Tertullian  among 
the  proofs  for  his  statement:  Qiiod  sint  quaedam  delicta 
cotidianae  incur sioniSy  quibtis  omnes  sirrms  obiecti.  Si 
niUla  sit  venia  istorum,  nemini  saltts  competat.  Pud.  19. 
We  are  quite  confident  Bruders  does  not  consider  the 
passage  in  itself  as  a  conclusive  support  of  the  Catholic 
distinction  between  mortal  and  venial  sin.  No  Catholic 
dogmatician,  to  our  knowledge,  has  tried  to  prove  the 
existence  of  the  distinction  in  early  Christianity  by  the 
peccata  cotidiana  of  Tertullian^^ 

Waldmann'^^  seems  to  imply  that  "the  rigorists  and 
idealists  in  all  times  since  Tertullian'*  have  denied  with 
more  reason  than  the  Stoics  the  existence  of  light  sins. 

From  the  foregoing  review  of  non-Catholic  and  Catho- 
lic authors,  who  have  directly  or  indirectly  touched  upon 
the  concept  of  personal  sin,  mortal  or  venial,  as  it  pro- 
bably existed  in  the  time  of  Tertullian,  we  gain  the  im- 
pression that  the  subject  is  a  settled  matter  for  non- 
Catholics,  while  Catholic  authors  either  hesitate  to  at- 
tack the  subject  or  insinuate  that  the  denial  of  a  dis- 
tinction between  mortal  and  venial  sin  finds  no  basis  in 
the  work  of  Tertullian  or  other  early  documents. 

Since  the  writings  of  Tertullian  treat  of  sin  at  great- 
er length  than  any  of  the  early  Christian  authors  we 
have  thus  far  considered,  (in  fact  more  than  all  to- 
gether) it  is  quite  natural  that  we  should  devote  more 
consideration  to  his  disquisition  on  the  concept  of  per- 
sonal sin.  His  writings  may  be  considered  the  most  de- 
cisive on  the  subject  in  question,  not  merely  because  of 
the  strong  grasp  his  mind  had  on  most  subjects  that  per- 
tained to  morality,  but  also  because  of  his  lengthy  and 

27  "Eucharist  and  Penance"'  p.  251. 

28  "Zkt."  p.  527  sq.,  1910. 

29  Cf.  "Kirchenlexikon"  (Herder's),  p.  955,  Vol.  XI,  2nd  ed. — 
Also  "Cath.  Encycl."  Vol.  XIV,  art.  on  Sin,  pp.  4  sqq. 

30  "Tq."  p.  156,  1917-18. 


g4  TERTULLIAN'S  DIVISIONS  OF  SIN 

detailed  discussions  of  certain  aspects  of  sin.  We  do  not 
think  it  an  exaggeration  to  state  that  the  finer  points  of 
theology  left  untouched  by  Tertullian  were  not  brought 
I  out  until  the  master  intellects,  St.  Augustine,  Peter  the 
\  Lombard,  and  St.  Thomas,  gave  them  attention.  The 
mind  of  Tertullian  dominated  the  ascetico-moral  field  of 
theology  at  least  in  the  Occident.  The  explicit  or  im- 
plicit teaching  of  Tertullian  concerning  mortal  sin  or 
what  may  be  construed  as  his  view  thereon,  his  interpre- 
tation of  the  doctrinal  concept  of  "light"  sin  must  there- 
fore be  of  supreme  importance  in  establishing  the  view 
of  early  Christianity  on  a  matter  so  far  reaching  as  the 
distinction  between  mortal  and  venial  sin. 


ALLEGED  SYNONYMS  88 


CHAPTER  XII. 

"MORTAL^^   AND   ALLEGED   SYNONYMS  IN 
TERTULLIAN'S   WORKS. 

Some  preparatory  light  on  the  important  subject  of  a 
distinction  between  mortal  and  venial  sin  comes  to  us 
from  a  precise  understanding  of  the  content  and  extent 
of  the  term  "capital"  as  used  in  connection  with  sin. 
Because  of  the  admittedly  indefinite  contents  of  terms  in 
general  during  the  embryonic  state  of  theological  ter- 
minology, the  assigning  of  synonymic  concepts  to  any 
terms  of  that  period  should  be  cautiously  attempted. 

In  no  text  of  Tertullian  do  we  find  capital  substituted 
for  mortal.  If  it  is  certain  that  capital  and  mortal  sins 
are  alike  irremissible  there  would  still  be  no  convincing 
comparison  of  contexts  that  would  force  us  to  consider 
the  terms  as  wholly  equivalent.'  The  texts  from  which 
the  irremissibility  of  mortal  and  capital  sins  could  be  de- 
duced and  which  at  first  glance  favor  the  assumption 
that  capital  and  mortal  are  synonymous  terms  follow 
here:  Quis  enim  dimittit  delicta,  ni  solus  Deus?  et 
utique  mortalia  qvjae  in  ipsum  fuerint  admissa,  et  in  tern- 
plum  eju^.  Pud  XXI,  2  (de  Labriolle  p.  192).  Adeo  ni- 
hil ad  delicta  fidelium  capitalia  potestas  solvendi  et  alii- 
gandi  Petro  emancipata.  Cui  si  praeceperat  Dominus 
etiam  septuagies  septies  delinquenti  in  eum  fratri  induU 
gere,  utique  nihil  postea  alligare,  id  est  retinere,  man- 
dasset,  nisi  forte  ea  quae  in  Dominum,  non  in  fratrem 
quis  admiserit.  Praejudicatur  enim  non  dimittenda  in 
Deum  delicta,  cum  in  homine  admissa  donantur.  Pud. 
XXI,  14,  15  (de  Labriolle  pp.  196,  198.)  Ita  nihil  jam 
superest,  quxim  aut  neges  moechiam  et  fomicationem 
mortalia  esse  delicta,  aut  irremissibilia  fatearis,  pro  qui- 
bus  nee  exorare  permittitur.  Pud.  XIX,  28  (de  Labriolle 
p.  184.)     Ceterum  si  etc.  ut  moechiam  et  fomicationem 

I  We  abstract  here  from  the  fact  that  Tertullian  was  in  his 
Montanistic  period  when  he  presumably  or,  perhaps,  really  made 
the  terms  mortal  and  capital  synonymous  with  irremissible. 


86  ALLEGED  SYNONYMS 

paenitentia  donent,  aut  et  cetera  delicta  pariter  capitaMa 
concedi  oportebit,  aut  paiiu  quoque  eorum  moechiam  et 
fomicationem  inconcessibilia  servari.  Picd.  IX,  20.  (de- 
Labriolle  pp.  106,  108). 

The  difficulty  alone  of  interpreting  the  texts  correctly, 
not  to  speak  of  the  consideration  due  to  the  Montanistic 
attitude  of  Tertullian,  argue  against  considering  the  syn- 
onymic contents  of  capital  and  mortal  as  settled  beyond 
dispute.  In  the  first  text  adduced  above  does  Tertullian 
wish  to  give  a  definition  of  mortal  sin  by  the  relative 
clause :  quae  in  ipsum  fuerint  adndssa,  et  in  templum 
ejus?  Or  is  the  clause  merely  explanatory?  What  could 
substantiate  the  statement  that  sins  in  fratrem  were  not 
among  the  mortalia?  In  point  of  fact,  fraus  is  mention- 
ed in  Pud.  19  as  among  those  sins  that  God  alone  can  re- 
mit. If  the  mortalia  are  to  be  considered  as  irremissibi- 
lia  and  the  irremissibilia  as  mortalia,  the  enumeration  of 
fraus  in  Pud,  19  would  place  a  serious  difficulty  in  the 
way  of  understanding  the  clause  mentioned  above  as  a 
definition.  If  the  clause  however  is  to  be  interpreted  as 
merely  explanatory  and  consequently  not  as  comprehen- 
sive (that  is,  not  enumerating  all  the  groups  of  sins  to 
be  considered  mortal)  the  text  cannot  be  used  in  con- 
nection with  Pud.  21  Adeo  nihil  ad  etc.  to  establish  the 
synonymic  concept  of  mortal  and  capital. 

The  uncertainty  as  to  the  meaning  and  support  of  the 
first  text  adduced  with  reference  to  the  synonymic  use  of 
the  two  terms  in  question  leaves  us  in  doubt  at  least  as 
to  the  value  of  the  remaining  texts,  since  in  these  there 
is  the  possibility  of  finding  a  synonymic  concept,  only  by 
means  of  the  term  irremissible  or  its  equivalent,  incon- 
cessible,^  that  is,  by  the  indirect  method  of  outlining  the 
concept  through  the  comparison  of  two  terms  with  a 


2  "Pud."  21 :  Adeo  nihil,  etc.,  will  upon  close  inspection  prove 
to  contain  an  example  of  the  method  Tertullian  applied  in  over- 
riding or  minimizing  an  obvious  objection  from  Scripture.  "Math." 
XVI,  19,  which  treats  of  the  power  of  binding  and  loosing, 
is  dismissed  lightly  with  the  explanation  that  sins  against  God 
are  to  be  retained,  sins  against  the  neighbor  are  to  be  remitted. 
"Pud."  21  Cui  (Petro)  si  praeceperat  Dominus,  etc. 


ALLEGED  SYNONYMS  87 

third.  The  text,  Pvd.  19  Ita  nihil  etc.,  would  seem  to 
make  irremissible  and  mortal  convertible  terms.  They 
could  perhaps  be  considered  such,  but  only  in  the  light  of 
the  interpretation  which  Tertullian  puts  on  certain  texts 
from  St.  John's  first  letter,  an  interpretation  which  a 
careful  reading  of  the  complete  chapter  Pud.  19  will 
show  to  be  forced  and  distorted  to  the  support  of  Ter- 
tullian's  viewpoint.^ 

The  text  from  Pud.  9,  Ceterum  si  etc.,  could  establish 
the  synonymic  nature  of  mortal  and  capital  only  in  con- 
nection with  one  of  the  passages  we  have  been  consider- 
ing. If  from  Tertullian's  method  of  argumentation  in 
Pud.  19  it  were  to  be  concluded  that  only  impurity  is  the 
"sin  unto  death",  then  other  crimes  that  are  equally 
capital  (pariter  capitalia)  are  not  ad  mortem,  although 
inconcessibilia. 

One  conclusion  seems  positive  from  the  brief  consid- 
eration we  have  given  the  possibility  of  the  synony- 
mic relation  between  capital  and  mortal  in  Tertullian 
and  that  may  be  summed  up  thus :  The  relation  of  capi- 
tal and  mortal  is  by  no  means  a  definite  matter,  the  terms 
cannot  be  considered  perfectly  equivalent,  and  their  con- 
tents must  be  determined  in  the  individual  passages 
where  they  occur.  The  relative  value  of  the  terms,  capi- 
tal and  mortal  with  reference  to  passages  that  speak  of 
delicta  irremissibilia  cannot  be  considered  a  settled  ques- 

3  Tertullian  devotes  the  greater  part  of  "Pud."  19  to  explaining, 
from  his  own  viewpoint,  the  texts  which  the  Psychics  brought 
forth,  presumably  in  support  of  the  edict  of  Callixtus,  e.  g.,  I 
"John"  I,  7:  sanguis  filii  ejus  emundat  nos  ab  omni  delicto.  To 
this  text  Tertullian  replies  with  a  specious  distinction :  Numquid 
ab  immunditia?  (This  reply  he  gives  primarily  to  "John"  I,  8, 
but  it  applies  also  to  I  "John"  I,  7).  He  is  apparently  unmindful 
that  his  distinction  is  nullified  by  a  text  which  he  adduces  later 
on  in  the  same  chapter:  Omnis  qui  facit  justiam,  Justus  est,  sicut 
et  ille  Justus  est.  Qui  facit  delictum,  ex  diabolo  est.  I  "John" 
III,  7,  8.  Tertullian  uses  in  quoting  I  "John"  III,  3,  castificat  for 
sanctificat  and  castus  for  sanctus.  The  last  part  of  "Pud."  19,  be- 
ginning with  Ita  Joannis  ratio  constabit  deversitatis,  etc.,  deals 
expressly  with  the  text  of  I  "John"  V,  16,  17,  concerning  the  sin 
that  is  unto  death  and  the  sin  that  is  not  unto  death.  Fornication 
and  adultery  must,  according  to  Tertullian's  reasoning,  be  con- 
sidered as  the  sins  ad  mortem,  for  the  remission  of  which  one 
may  not  even  offer  prayer. 


88  ALLEGED  SYNONYMS 

tion  since  irremissible,  mortal  and  capital  are  not  demon- 
strably convertible  terms.  Even  if  we  were  to  concede 
that  the  Montanistic  De  Pudicitia  did  use  the  terms  syn- 
onymously we  merely  would  be  granting  that  Tertullian 
gave  the  terms  rigoristic  limits  which  they  did  not  poss- 
ess in  Psychic  thought,  as  may  be  deduced  from  Tertul- 
lian's  tangible  effort  to  reconstruct  their  meaning.* 

It  should  be  noted  that  the  number  of  capital  sins  is 
not  the  same  in  the  passages  in  which  Tertullian  enumer- 
ates them,  Adv.  Marc,  IV,  9  and  Pud,  19.  D' Ales''  and 
Adam^  call  special  attention  to  this  fact.  The  latter 
sees  in  the  expansion  of  the  four  categories  of  sins  (adul- 
tery, homicide,  idolatry,  deceit^  to  the  seven  of  Tertul- 
lian's  Montanistic  period  (Semi-Montanistic  according 
to  D'Ales)  and  later  in  Pud.  to  a  number  that  included 
negatio  and  sins  in  general  against  the  temple  of  God,  a 
sufficient  proof  of  the  inconstancy  of  the  number  of  capi- 
tal sins,  at  least  in  the  day  of  Tertullian. 

The  text  of  Adv.  Marc.  IV,  9,  septem  maculis  capita- 
Hum  delictorem  etc.,  has  been  interpreted  as  meaning  the 
seven  capital  sins.  This  interpretation  seems  the  most 
obvious.  There  is  hardly  any  probability  that  Tertullian 
had  in  mind  to  say :  septem  mactdae  quae  proveniunt  ex 
delictis  capitalihus.  The  one  important  objection  to  such 
an  interpretation  lies  in  the  very  text  itself.     Idolatry, 


4  With  reference  to  the  passage  "Pud."  21  Adeo  nihil,  which 
mentions  the  sins  in  dominum  in  contra-distinction  to  those  in 
fratrem,  it  may  be  well  worth  recalling  that  this  classification 
adds  another  element  of  uncertainty  to  fixing  the  conceptual  con- 
tent of  mortal  and  capital. — Harnack  states  in  "Dogmengesch,"  I, 
3rd  ed.,  p.  407:  Die  Unterscheidung  von  solchen  Suenden,  die  wider 
Gott  selbst  begangen  sind,  wie  sie  sich  bei  Tertullian,  Cyprian  und 
anderen  Vaetern  findet,  bleibt  mit  einer  Unklarkeit  behaftet,  die 
ich  nicht  zu  lichten  vermag.  Esser  tries  to  throw  some  light  on 
this  difficulty  of  Harnack  by  calling  attention  to  the  sins  that  are 
directly  against  God  and  to  the  sins  that  are  directly  against  the 
neighbor.  Between  the  two,  he  places  the  sins  against  the  tem- 
ple of  God:  ("Die  Bussschriften  TertuUians,"  etc.,  p.  16).  The  mere 
statement  of  Tertullian's  division  of  sins  does  not,  of  course,  solve 
the  difficulty.— D'Ales,  "L'fidit.  de  Call."  p.  211  sq. 

5  "L'Edit  de  Call."  p.  205  sq. 

6  "Der  Kirchenbegriff  Tert's"  in  "Forschungen  z.  christl.  Lit- 
eratur  u.  Dogmengesch,"  VI  4  Heft  Paderborn,  1909. 

7    Cf.  "Bapt."  4,  "Idol."  I,  "Paen."  7. 


ALLEGED  SYNONYMS  89 

murder  and  adultery  would  then  also  flow  forth  from  the 
capital  sins,  which  title  however  they  justly  claim  above 
all  other  crimes.  Still  this  objection  will  find  a  quite 
ready  reply  in  Tertullian's  treatise  on  Idolatry  c.  1. There 
Tertullian  strives  to  show  the  source  relation  between 
idolatry  and  the  sins  of  murder,  adulter>%  fornication, 
fraud,  etc.  A  mutual  source-relation,  therefore,  between 
the  so-called  capital  sins,  adultery,  murder  and  idolatry, 
was  perhaps  before  the  mind  of  Tertullian.  At  least,  it 
cannot  be  said  with  certainty  that  Tertullian  wished  to 
constitute  seven  as  the  number  of  capital  sins. 

The  text  in  which  the  enumeration  occurs  is  quite  ob- 
scure.^ In  the  strikingly  similar  passage  of  Pud.  19  we 
find  no  reference  to  the  passage  from  Adv.  Marc.  IV,  9.'' 
From  a  comparison  of  the  two  passages  we  would  not  be 
inclined  to  believe  that  Tertullian  attached  any  value  in 

8  Si  autem  Helisaeus  prophetes  creatoris  unicum  leprosum 
Naaman  Syrum  ex  tot  leprosis  Israelitis  emundavit,  nee  hoc  ad 
diversitatem  facit  Christi,  quasi  hoc  modo  melioris,  dum  Israeliten 
leprosum  emundat  extraneus,  quern  suus  dominus  emundare  non 
valuerat,  Syro  facilius  emundato  significato  per  nationes  emun- 
dationis  in  Christo  lumine  earum  quae  septem  maculis  capitalium 
delictorum  inhorrerent,  idolatria,  blasphemia,  homicidio,  adul- 
terio,  stupro,  falso  testimonio,  fraude.  "Adv.  Marc."  IV,  c.  9 
Oehler,  Vol.  II,  pp.  174  sq.  Oehler  quotes  Fr.  lunius  as  saying  of 
the  text  "Locus  obscurus,  quia  scribit  auctor  ex  Marcionitarum 
hypothesi."  Op.  cit.,  p.  175  in  footnote.  The  "Anf."  version  is  as 
follows :  If,  however,  the  Creator's  prophet  Elisha  cleansed  Naa- 
man the  Syrian  alone,  to  the  exclusion  of  so  many  lepers  in  Israel, 
this  fact  contributes  nothing  to  the  distinction  of  Christ,  as  if  He 
were  in  this  way  the  better  one  for  cleansing  this  Israelite  leper, 
although  a  stranger  to  him,  whom  his  own  Lord  had  been  unable 
to  cleanse.  The  cleansing  of  the  Syrian  rather  was  significant 
throughout  the  nations  of  the  world  of  their  own  cleansing  in 
Christ  their  light,  steeped  as  they  were  in  the  stains  of  the  seven 
deadly  sins :  idolatry,  blasphemy,  murder,  adultery,  fornication, 
false-witness,  and  fraud.  "Anf."  Vol.  Ill,  p.  356.  The  solid  prob- 
ability that  Tertullian  is  here  quoting  Marcion's  words  concerning 
the  seven  capital  sins  opens  up  an  avenue  of  doubt  as  to  whether 
Tertullian  himself  accepted  the  list  of  sins  mentioned  as  a  stand- 
ardized enumeration.  Several  variations  in  the  list  of  "Pud."  19 
leave  the  doubt  unsettled. 

9  "Pud."  19;  Sunt  autem  et  contraria  istis,  ut  graviora  et  ex- 
itiosa,  quae  veniam  non  capiant,  homicidium,  idololatria,  fraus, 
negatio,  blasphemia,  utique  et  moechia  et  fornicatio,  et  si  qua 
alia  violatio  templi  Dei.  (de  Labriolle  p.  182.)  It  will  be  noticed 
that  there  are  eight,  or  even  more,  sins  mentioned  in  the  enume- 
ration which  agrees  however  substantially  with  the  text  from 
"Adv.  Marc."  IV,  9. 


90  ALLEGED  SYNONYMS 

a  particular  sense  to  the  term  capital  as  to  an  accepted 
designation  of  a  certain  number  of  sins.'^  The  sequence 
given  in  Adv.  Marc.  IV,  9,  idololatria,  blasphemia,  homi- 
cidio,  adulterio,  stupi^o.  falso  testimonio,  fravde,  follows 
with  the  exception  of  the  last  term — and  explicitly  the 
second  last  term — ^the  order  of  the  Ten  Commandments. 
The  order  of  succession  given  in  Ptid.  19;  homicidium, 
idololatria,  fraus,  negatio,  blasphemia,  utique  et  meochia 
et  fomicatio,  et  si  qua  alia  violatio  templi  Dei,  finds,  per- 
haps, a  partial  excuse  for  its  disregard  of  perspective  in 
Tertullian's  intention  of  stressing  the  sins  of  the  flesh. 
There  is  no  method  in  the  sequence  of  the  first  five  terms. 
If  it  was  Tertullian's  intention  to  enumerate  a  standard- 
ized series  of  sins  it  would  seem  a  proper  sequence 
should  have  been  given.  The  variation  in  number  and 
the  apparent  lack  of  a  standard  sequence  makes  it  high- 
ly probable  that  there  was  no  set  number  of  sins  claiming 
the  definite  term  capital  as  a  generic  appelation.  The 
similarity  between  the  passages  need  not  be  explained  by 
recourse  to  an  accepted  enumeration  of  sins.  A  reason, 
simple  enough,  for  the  similarity  can  be  found  in  the 
fact  that  several  enumerations  of  the  principal  sins  will 
by  their  very  nature  be  restricted  to  possibly  the  same 
offenses,  if  not  the  same  terminology.  The  chief  trans- 
gressions of  the  Ten  Commandments  will  always  be 
mentioned  as  the  principal  sins  with  a  variation,  most 
probably,  of  terms  according  to  the  viewpoint  which  the 
morality  concepts  of  the  enumerator  would  fashion. 

In  the  passages  which  offer  synonymic  concepts  for 
the  term  capital  we  find  sufficient  grounds  for  the  as- 
sumption that  the  term  capital  sins  was  not  used  to 
signify  a  set  group  of  sins  in  the  sense  which  we  find  as- 
cribed to  it  for  the  Tertullianic  period  of  Christianity. 
Honoravit  utique  moechiam,  quam  homicidio  anteponit, 
in  prima  itaque  fronte  sanctissimae  legis  in  primis  titulis 
caelestis  edicti,  principalium  utique  delictorum  proscrip- 
tione  signatam  .    Pud,  V.  5,  (de  Labr.  p.  72).    Moechia 

10    D'Ales,  "L'fidit.  de  Call.,  pp.  205  sq. 


ALLEGED  SYNONYMS  91 

is  either  in  this  term  or  in  a  similar  one  always  men- 
tioned as  one  of  the  capital  sins.  If  any  passage  should 
demand  its  enumeration  according  to  a  recognized  and 
accepted  terminology,  the  passage  just  quoted  would 
surely  lay  claim  to  that  right.  We  find  in  it  several 
qualifications  that  apply  to  the  position  of  moechia 
among  the  transgressions  of  the  decalogue.  We  find  the 
proscHptio  with  which  .moechia  is  marked  in  the  clauses : 
Homiddio  anteponit,  in  prima  fronte,  in  primis  titvMs. 
The  particle  utique  makes  the  final  clause  a  self  evident 
conclusion  or  one  about  which  there  can  be  no  reason- 
able doubt,  at  least  according  to  Tertullian's  view.  It  is 
to  be  admitted,  if  we  argue  along  Tertullian's  lines,  that 
the  conclusion  was  one  with  which  all  moralizers  should 
agree.  The  use  of  standardized  terms  would  therefore 
be  most  expected  in  just  such  a  passage.  If  capital  sins 
had  been  a  quite  universally  recognized  title  for  certain 
transgressions,  the  appearance  of  the  expression  could  be 
most  logically  demanded  in  the  passage  quoted. 

It  may  be  well  to  preclude  an  objection  that  could 
easily  arise  from  the  consideration,  that  Tertullian  by 
principal  meant  perhaps  the  more  or  most  prominent 
sins  among  those  recognized  as  capital.  Tertullian  has, 
however,  in  the  passages  we  considered,  given  capital  as 
much  superlative  force  as  any  other  similar  adjective 
that  he  used  in  qualifying  delictum  or  crimen,^^ 

In  Pat.  V.'2  murder,  adultery,  trafficking  in  impurity, 
are  mentioned  as  principalia  penes  dominum  delicta. 
Other  sins,  also  are  mentioned  in  the  context.  They 
seem  to  be  connected  however  as  preliminaries  to  the 
few  just  mentioned.  Among  the  concomitant  or  prelim- 
inary sins  we  find  hatred,  anger  and  avarice.  If  we  con- 
sider them  as  merely  connected  with  the  graver  sins  of 
murder  and  impurity — and  there  is  apparently  no  con- 
texual  objection  thereto,  for  we  may  rightly  assume  that 
Tertullian  understood  hatred,  anger  and  avarice  to  be 

11  Cf.  passage  adduced  above  in  discussion  of  the  question  con- 
cerning the  synonymic  value  of  the  terms  capital  and  mortal. 

12  Oehler,  Vol.  I,  p.  597,  line  20. 


92  ALLEGED  SYNONYMS 

sinful  dispositions  rather  than  sinful  acts — we  have  then 
two  of  the  usual  three  capital  or  principal  sins.  Idolatry 
is  left  out  in  that  enumeration  but  it  is  added  apparently 
in  afterthought  to  the  preceding  number  in  the  final 
paragraph  of  the  chapter  mentioned.  There  is  however 
no  conclusive  evidence  from  the  passage,  in  which  men- 
tion is  made  of  Israel's  turning  gold  into  an  idol,^^  that 
any  stress  is  placed  on  idolatry  as  an  effect  of  impatience. 
The  sin  of  idolatry  is  not  mentioned  as  such.  The  sin  of 
turning  gold  into  an  idol  enters  somewhat  incidentally 
into  the  narration  of  the  several  occasions  on  which 
Israel  impatiently  deserted  God.  It  cannot  be  said  that 
Tertullian  sufficiently  mentioned  idolatry  in  this  passage 
to  give  us  reason  for  the  assumption  that  idolatry  con- 
stituted with  murder  and  impurity  a  standardized  trio 
of  sins  at  this  period,  at  least  in  Tertullian's  writings. 

It  should  be  remembered  that  De  Patientia  appeared 
between  six  and  twelve  years  before  De  Idololatria  or 
De  Pttdicitia,  in  which  works  the  enumeration  of  the 
trio  becomes  more  prominent.^*  If  Tertullian  grouped 
the  principal  or  capital  sins  into  a  standardized  trio  we 
have  no  definite  proof  thereof  in  his  Catholic  period. 
The  logical  sequence  of  ideas  in  his  Catholic  works^^ 
would  not  warrant  the  supposition  that  Tertullian  wish- 
ed to  be  complete  in  his  enumeration^^  of  all  sins  due  to 
impatience,  especially  of  the  principal  ones.  The  addi- 
tion of  idolatry,  moreover,  would  have  been  made  with 
some  explanatory  remark,  and  its  separation  from  the 
others  would  likewise  have  been  called  to  our  attention 
for  its  special  mention.  This  passage  therefore  from  Pat. 
V,  the  only  one  that  can  be  adduced  from  Tertullian's 
Catholic  period,  does  not  sufficiently  demonstrate  that  in 
Tertullian's  orthodox  theology  a  separate  grouping  of 
principal  sins  is  to  be  found.     Still  less  reason  have  we 

13  "Pat."  V.  Oehler  I,  p.  598,  line  7:  cum  in  idolum  auri  sui  col- 
lationes  defundit. 

14  "Pat."  belongs,  moreover,  to  Tert's.  Catholic  period,  "Idol." 
to  his  Semi-Montanistic  interlude,  "Pud."  is  Montanistic. 

15  E.  g.  "Orat.,"  "Apol.,"  "Test.  Anim." 

16  "Pat."  V. 


ALLEGED  SYNONYMS  93 

to  believe  that  principal  and  capital  are  used  with  a 
specifically  different  sense.  There  is  of  course  no  logical 
demand  for  a  presentation  of  the  capital  sins  in  the  pas- 
sage just  considered,  but  we  could  expect,  with  some  jus- 
tification, to  see  them  mentioned  under  a  standard  title, 
such  title  existed. 

The  passage  from  Pvd,  V^  offers  nothing  towards  the 
question  under  consideration:  Nee  enim  moechia  et  for- 
nicatio  de  modicis  et  de  maximis  delictis  deputabuntur. 
It  is  evident  from  the  context  that  Tertullian  is  using 
the  terms  most  aptly  fitted  to  round  out  his  argument 
against  the  edict  concerning  the  remission  of  "one  of  the 
greatest  sins."  Sed  cum  ea  sint  qvxie  culmen  criminum 
teneant,  non  capiunt  et  indulgeri  qitasi  modica  et  praeca- 
veri  quasi  maxima^^  refers  to  the  capital  sins  for  culmen 
criminum  is  obviously  a  synonymic  expression  for  capi- 
tal or  principal. 

In  the  next  passage  lATofets  autem  maxima  aut  summa 
sic  quoque  praecaventur  the  term  capital  would  well  have 
been  used,  since,  on  the  one  hand,  Tertullian  was  not  in 
need  of  a  superlative  for  contrast  with  the  following 
thought,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  mention  of  capital 
sin,  if  such  a  term  existed  in  theological  terminology  as 
an  accepted  expression,  would  have  most  logically  fitted 
the  trend  of  argument  in  his  first  chapter  attack  on  the 
decree  of  Callixtus.  The  terms  maxima,  summa,  and 
culmen  criminum  are  qualifying  expressions  of  ordinary 
terminology.  A  standardized  expression  as  delicta  capi- 
talia  would  have  found  its  way  into  Tertullian's  intro- 
ductory argument.  It  is  true,  the  term  capital  appears 
in  other  parts  of  Pud.  But  if  we  may  assume  that  the 
first  chapter  i^  along  general  lines  in  so  far  as  it  attacks 
the  decree  of  the  Pontifex  Maximum  because  of  its  assert- 
ed break  with  the  traditional  penitential  discipline  and 
its  supposedly  disastrous  results  in  inviting  to  further 
sin,  it  is  undoubtedly  very  reasonable  to  expect  the  use 
of  a  term,   which  because  of  its  accepted  conceptual 

17  Oehlcr  Vol.  I,  p.  794,  lines  8,  11  sq. 

18  Ibid.,  line  9. 


94  ALLEGED  SYNONYMS 

meaning  would  appeal  more  forcibly  to  the  Christian 
public  or  surely  to  the  better  educated  classes  thereof. 
The  body  of  Pud,  deals  directly  with  the  arguments  pre- 
sumably adduced  by  the  Psychics  in  support  of  the  edict. 

Even  in  the  body  of  Tertullian's  criticism  of  the  edict 
we  find  no  one  special  argument  grouped  about  the  ex- 
pression capitalia  delicta.  As  a  mattter  of  fact  the  ar- 
gument, or  better  the  minor  premise  of  the  argument, 
in  which  the  expression  occurs,  is  adduced  as  a  secondary 
element.  It  is  indeed  only  after  the  conclusion  of  a 
lengthy  defense  of  the  interpretation  which  he  puts  on 
certain  parables,  principally  that  of  the  prodigal  son, 
that  mention  is  made  of  capital  sins.  And  the  mention 
they  receive  is  quite  incidental.  Tertullian  closes  his  ar- 
gumentative interpretation  of  the  parables  by  stating: 
Puto  me  et  materiae  paraholarum  et  co7igruentme  rerum 
et  tutelae  discipUnarum  accomodatiores  interpretationes 
reddidisse.  Pud.  IX,  20,  (de  Labr.  p.  106).  Then  he 
immediately  adds  as  if  because  of  secondary  importance : 
Ceterum  si  in  hoc  gestit  diversa  pars  ovem  et  drachmam 
et  filii  luxuriam  christiano  peccatori  configurare,  ut 
moechiam  et  fornicationem  paenitentia  donent,  aut  et 
cetera  delicta  pariter  capitalia  concedi  oportebit,  aut 
paria  quoque  eorum  moechiam  et  fomicoMonem  incon- 
cessibilia  servari.  Pud.  IX,  20,  (de  Labr.  pp.  106,  108.) 
The  next  sentence  takes  up  an  altogether  different 
thought,  the  enunciation  of  a  general  principle  concern- 
ing the  legitimate  extent  of  interpretation :  Sed  plu^  est, 
quod  nihil  aliud  argumentari  licet  citra  id  de  quo  age- 
batur.^^  We  say  that  the  sentence  Sed  plus  etc.,  takes  up 
an  altogether  different  thought.  However,  there  is  at 
least  a  general  reference  to  the  lengthy  argumentative 
interpretation  of  the  various  parables.  The  thought  ex- 
pressed in  the  sentence  referring  to  the  delicta  capitalia 
is  completely  overlooked. 

Difficult  as  the  dilemma  which  Tertullian  interjects 
(aut  et  cetera  delicta  pariter  capitalia  concedi  oportebit, 

19  "Pud."  IX,  21,  ibid.— The  English  translation  very  correctly 
begins  with  a  new  paragraph.    "Anf."  Vo.  IV,  p.  84. 


ALLEGED  SYNONYMS  95 

aut  jKivia  quoque  eorum  moechiam  et  fornicationem  in- 
eoncessibilia  servari)  may  seem,  he  pays  apparently  little 
attention  to  it,  which  may  be  due  to  the  consideration 
that,  for  the  present,  he  is  interested  principally  in  show- 
ing what  he  considers  a  more  appropriate  interpretation. 
Incidentally,  the  forensic  mind  of  Tertullian  added  its  re- 
flection to  the  exegetical  product.^^  Not  improbable 
either  is  the  consideration  that  the  dilemma  would  open 
up  too  large  a  field  for  argument  with  his  adversary. 
Moechia  and  fomicatio  had  to  be  demonstrated  as  the 
irremissible  sins,  others  for  the  present  must  not  enter 
to  disturb  the  trend  of  the  broader  argument. 

Before  proceeding  to  the  examination  of  the  other 
texts  in  Pud.  which  use  the  term  capital  it  is  well  to 
note  in  the  present  one  the  full  meaning  of  a  few  words 
that  are  used  in  connection  with  capital,  Tertullian 
speaks  here  of  cetera  delicta.  To  our  knowledge  there 
is  no  passage  in  Tertullian  that  uses  cetera  for  merely 
two.  Adultery,  murder  and  idolatry  are  not  the  three 
capital  sins.  This  text  seems  to  be  a  confirmation  of 
that  statement.  Cetera,  we  believe  with  a  good  probabi- 
lity, does  not  apply  merely  to  murder  and  idolatry.  If 
there  are  several  sins  to  be  recognized  as  capital  their 
number  includes  others  beside  those  just  mentioned. 
Eight  irremissible  sins  are  listed  in  Piid,  19.  Their 
striking  resemblance  to  those  listed  in  Adv.  Marc.  IV,  9, 
give  them  the  title  of  capital,  but  the  very  difference  in 
number  shows  that  capital  was  not  applied  to  a  stated 
number  of  sins  and,  viewed  in  the  light  of  the  two  texts 
just  mentioned,  makes  it  highly  improbable  that  capital 
had  any  definite  recognized  application  in  moral  termino- 
logy. Cetera  in  Pud.  IX,  20,  apparently  refers  to  a 
series  of  sins  that  includes  seven  or  eight  or  even  more. 

It  is  a  fine  question  as  to  whether  cetera  was  used  here 
by  Tertullian  in  the  sense  of  "the  other"  or  merely  of 
"other"  capital  sins.  The  answer  would  have  little  or  no 
consequence  perhaps  for  the  general  question  concerning 

20    D'AIes  "L'fidit."  de  Call."  p.  199,  lines  15,  16. 


96  ALLEGED  SYNONYMS 

the  extent  and  the  import  of  the  term  capital  It  might 
however  be  of  some  value  if  we  could  determine  whether 
Tertullian  meant  to  leave  it  to  admissible  divergent 
views  as  to  what  should  and  what  should  not  be  consid- 
ered capital. 

Concerning  the  term  pariter  it  may  be  stated  with  cer- 
tainty that  Tertullian  did  not  use  it  here  equivalent  to 
absolute,  that  is,  eodem  gradu.  The  term  capital  would 
not  easily  lend  itself  to  strict  comparison.  In  Pud,  V  the 
relative  position  of  adultery  to  murder  and  idolatry  is 
treated  at  length,  in  Tertullian's  Montanistic  view  of 
course,  and  with  more  rhetorical  than  exegetical  exact- 
ness.^^  We  may  attach  more  probability  to  the  consid- 
eration that  pariter  should  not  modify  capitalia  if  the 
latter  has  an  established  place  in  theological  terminology. 
The  second  member  of  the  dilemma  aut  paria  quoque 
eorum  moechiam  et  fomicationem  inconcessibilia  ser- 
vari  does  not  militate  against  this  probability  since  paria 
is  used  with  the  evident  intent  of  strengthening  the 
dilemma  by  making  one  term  in  the  second  member  cor- 
respond to  one  in  the  first.  Incidentally,  it  is  to  be  added 
that  Tertullian  seems  to  place  more  stress  on  the  parity 
of  the  eminence  above  other  sins  than  on  the  eminence 
itself.  The  quality  of  being  capital,  or  eminent,  is  pre- 
supposed. We  may  well  suppose  that  a  much  stronger 
argument  could  have  been  made  by  appealing  principally 
to  a  presumably  standardized  title. 

The  other  passage  in  Pud.  in  which  the  word  capital 
occurs  is  as  follows :  Adeo  nihil  ad  delicta  fidelium  capi- 
talia potestas  solvendi  et  alligandi  Petro  emancipata. 
Pud.  XXI,  14,  (de  Labriolle  p.  196).  As  indicated  above 
a  plausible  interpretation  of  what  capital  means  in  this 
passage  is  given  by  a  brief  consideration  of  the  context 

21  D'  Ales'  "fidit.  de  Call."  p.  198'  criticising  the  way  in  which 
Tertullian  maneuvers  the  relative  positions  of  idolatry,  murder 
and  impurity,  states :  "Le  mouvement  est  beau,  sans  doute,  mais 
il  est  faux,  car  pour  le  rendre  plus  dramatique,  Tertullian  a  du  in- 
tervetir  I'ordre  du  cinquieme  et  du  sixieme  precepte  du  Deca- 
logue: en  realite,  I'impudicite,  n'y  est  mentionnee  qu'apres  1'  homi- 
cide, II  faut  done  reconnaitre  ici  une  erreur,  sinon  un  artifice  con- 
scient." 


ALLEGED  SYNONYMS  97 

in  which  the  term  is  found.  Sins  against  the  Lord,  not 
sins  against  the  neighbor,  were  to  be  retained,  if,  indeed, 
alligare  or  retinere  are  at  all  according,  to  TertuUian,  to 
be  interpreted  as  referring  to  the  Power  of  the  Keys. 
Capital  sins  would  therefore  have  to  be  considered  sins 
against  the  Lord.  Sins  against  the  neighbor  are  not 
capital.  As  to  what  has  become  of  the  subdivision  of 
sins,  namely  those  against  the  temple  of  God,  there  is  no 
information  to  be  found.  In  the  preceding  chapter  Ter- 
tuUian had  just  mentioned  the  distinction  of  mortal  sins 
into  those  against  God  and  those  against  His  temple.  It 
is  hardly  plausible  that  within  so  short  a  space  TertuUian 
would  have  set  aside  the  distinction  he  had  just  men- 
tioned. It  could  be  argued  that  TertuUian  is  lightly 
brushing  away  or  passing  over  the  importance  attached 
to  the  argument  of  the  Psychics  based  on  the  power 
granted  to  Peter,  and  that,  strictly  speaking  there  is  no 
apparent  reason  why  TertuUian  should  mention  the  three 
classifications  of  sin,  those  against  the  Lord,  those 
against  His  temple,  and  those  against  the  neighbor. 

Undoubtedly  the  expression  nisi  forte  in  Pud.  XXI,  15 
sufficiently  indicates  that  TertuUian  considers  Peter's 
power  of  binding  an  exegetical  difficulty  of  very  minor 
importance,  as  is  plainly  demonstrated  in  the  text  imme- 
diately following:  Praejudicatur  enim  non  dimittenda 
in  Deum  delicta,  cum  in  homine  admissa  donantur.  Pud, 
XXI,  15.  A  logical  argument  is  apparently  not  even  de- 
manded to  justify  his  standpoint.  Py^aejudicatur  is  suffi- 
ciently conclusive  to  hold  that  the  comprehensiveness 
of  quaecunque,  which  is  used  both  in  connection  with 
alligare  and  solvere,  is  therefore  lightly  dismissed.  But 
it  must  be  remembered  that  the  theme  of  Tertullian's 
work  De  Pudicitia  is  precisely  the  defense  of  the  irre- 
missibilia  peccafa  in  templum  dei.  Therefore  they 
should  have  been  mentioned,  and  with  special  stress.  The 
consideration  that  sins  against  the  temple  of  God  are 
also  sins  against  God  does  not  enter  here,  for  it  remains 
to  be  demonstrated  that  TertuUian  comprehended  the 
former  under  the  latter. 


98  ALLEGED  SYNONYMS 

Of  course,  this  text  could  be  adduced  to  prove  that  sins 
against  the  temple  of  God  are  but  a  species  of  the  sins 
against  God  himself,  but  we  think  the  argument  would 
not  be  convincing,  because  of  the  important  reflection 
given  above,  namely,  that  Tertullian's  purpose  in  De 
Pudicitia  was  to  bring  forth  all  favorable  points  for 
purity. 

Since  the  argument  of  the  Psychics  taken  from  the 
power  granted  to  Peter  for  the  remission  of  sins  was  un- 
doubtedly one  of  their  strongest  proofs,  the  inference 
seems  absolutely  justified  that  Tertullian  on  his  part, 
even  though  he  seemingly  tries  to  pass  over  the  difficulty, 
would  touch  on  his  principal  object,  the  irremissibility  of 
sins  against  the  temple  of  God.  As  stated  above,  the 
capital  sins  of  the  faithful,  comprised  according  to  the 
context  only  those  which  were  against  God.  The  sup- 
position that  Tertullian  purposely  left  sins  against  God's 
temple  altogether  out  of  consideration  and  that,  conse- 
quently, capitalia  is  not  to  be  interpreted  strictly  ac- 
cording to  the  context  as  non-inclusive  of  sins  against 
God's  temple  loses  support  in  view  of  the  Montanistic 
doctrine  that  idolatry,  a  sin  against  God,  was,  as  to  its 
exemption  from  the  power  of  Peter,  at  least  in  the  same 
class  as  impurity.  The  text  cannot  be  dismissed,  there- 
fore, as  not  to  the  point  or  as  an  insufficient  argument 
against  the  term  capital  as  an  accepted  expression  in 
theological  terminology.  On  the  contrary  the  very  value 
of  it  in  the  supposition  that  it  was  an  accepted  term 
should  lead  us  to  expect  its  use  not  only  frequently  in  so 
important  a  work  as  Pvd.  but  above  all  in  so  prominent 
a  passage  as  the  one  we  have  just  considered. 

It  is  quite  obvious  from  the  passages  considered  that 
capital  sin  is  an  expression  which  had  an  altogether  diff- 
erent meaning  in  Tertullian's  day  from  the  one  that  is 
now  prevalent  in  theological  science.  The  expression  is 
used  today  as  a  definite  term  for  the  principal  vices. 
We  say  definite  in  the  sense  that  the  principal  vices  or 
evil  habits  or  sources  of  moral  evil  constitute  a  number 
universally  recognized  by  Catholic  theologians  of  today 


ALLEGED  SYNONYMS  99 

under  the  title  capital,  St.  Thomas"  calls  a  capital  vice 
that  which  has  an  exceedingly  desirable  end,  so  that  in 
his  desire  for  it  man  goes  to  the  commission  of  many 
sins  all  of  which  are  said  to  originate  in  that  vice  as 
their  chief  source.  Capital,  therefore,  according  to  St. 
Thomas,  means  the  same  as  source.  No  mention  is  made 
of  the  term  capital  as  the  equivalent  of  principal. 

From  the  various  texts  and  context  investigation 
which  we  have  submitted  in  the  preceding  pages  con- 
cerning the  conceptual  relation  of  capital  to  mortal,  prin- 
cipal and  irremissihle,  and  concerning  the  conceptual 
content  of  capital  we  are  inclined  to  be  of  the  opinion 
that  the  term  capital  had  no  set  theologico-terminological 
value  in  Teitullian's  day,  that  there  is  not  sufficient  rea- 
son to  believe  that  it  had  the  same  content  as  mortal, 
though  there  might  be  some  reason  for  the  opinion  that 
capital  was  most  probably  an  ordinary  substitute  for  the 
term  principal;  that  it  referred  to  actual  sin,  not  so 
much  to  evil  vice ;  that  it  was  used  to  describe  sins  which 
stood  out  above  others  by  reason  of  their  greater  degree 
of  sinfulness.  Whether  it  was  used  in  the  sense  which 
is  to  be  found  in  penal  laws  still  remains  to  be  settled. 
We  are  not  concerned  with  that  phase  of  the  question. 

The  investigation  of  the  conceptual  content  of  capital 
sin  is  preparatory  for  the  proper  study  of  personal  sin 
in  Tertullian's  works  in  so  far  as  it  shows  in  the  passages 
considered  some  of  the  restrictions  to  be  placed  on  the 
extent  of  the  terms.  Though  the  restrictions  are  of  a 
negative  nature  and  give  us  but  little  positive  ground  on 
which  to  construct  the  principal  outlines  of  the  concept, 
they  are  sufficient  to  guard  us  against  assumptions  that 
are  found  wanting  when  sifted  for  substance. 

It  is  true,  though  trite,  that  we  are  only  too  prone  to 
accept  as  certain  that  which  appears  probable,  and  so- 
called  circumstantial  proofs  are  overlooked  as  to  their 
real  value  and  taken  for  demonstrated,  while  their  basis 
still  lacks  verification.     This  is  especially  applicable  in 

22    Ila-IIae,  q.  153,  art.  4;  I^-H^®,  q.  84,  art.  3  sq. 


100  ALLEGED  SYNONYMS 

deductions  from  terminology.  Terms  have  not  the  per- 
manency of  concepts.  The  history  of  the  development  of 
Catholic  dogma  furnishes  ample  proof  for  that.  The 
solid  contents  of  the  articles  of  faith  existed  at  all  times 
in  the  history  of  the  Church,  while  terminology,  accord- 
ing to  the  development  of  conditions,  perfected  itself  to 
give  the  concepts  their  concrete  expression.  It  would 
therefore  be  presuming  too  much  as  demonstrated,  if  we 
were  to  accept  without  further  investigation  a  term  as 
representing  a  standard  concept  merely  because  that 
term  occurs  several  times  in  an  apparently  set  form. 

The  term  capital,  as  we  have  seen,  occurs  several  times 
in  the  works  of  Tertullian  and  at  first  glance  occupies  a 
recognized  place  among  the  terms  he  uses  in  designating 
the  various  kinds  of  delicta.  We  do  not  find  sufficient 
evidence  for  attaching  more  importance  to  it  than  to 
any  similar  term.  Principal  has  quite  probably  as  much 
right  to  be  considered  a  set  theological  term  as  capital. 
To  all  appearance,  however,  the  term  principal  in  Tertul- 
lian's  time  was  not  to  be  found  in  sanctioned  theological 
terminology. 


THE  TERTULLIANIC  TERM  "MORTAL"  101 

CHAPTER  XIII. 
THE  TERTULLIANIC  TERM  "MORTAL." 

In  the  following  pages  we  shall  take  up  the  concept  of 
mortal  sin  in  the  works  of  Tertullian.  We  shall  strive 
to  construct  from  texts  and  contexts  his  view  of  mortal 
sin  both  as  to  content  and  extent.  The  question  as  to 
whether  the  Catholic  view  or  the  non-Catholic  views  on 
this  important  elementary  concept  of  Christian  morality 
have  any  support  in  the  tradition  of  Christian  doctrine 
in  Tertullian's  day  is  of  course  a  fundamental  study  of 
the  investigation  of  Tertullian's  works.  His  influential 
position  in  the  early  stages  of  theological  thought  gives 
this  topic  a  prominence  most  worthy  of  consideration. 
As  has  been  stated,  he  was  a  determining  factor  in  the 
molding  not  merely  of  theological  thought  but  also  of 
theological  terminology.  As  to  matters  Catholic,  his 
varying  viewpoint  must  of  course  be  taken  thoroughly 
into  consideration.  It  is  quite  evident  to  the  sincere- 
minded  reader  of  Tertullian  that  whole  concepts  may  be 
taken  bodily  even  from  the  Montanistic  works  of  Ter- 
tullian, such  as  the  high  esteem  in  which  Christianity 
held  the  virtue  of  purity,  whereas  correct  Catholic  con- 
cepts on  certain  points  are  obtained  by  direct  denial  of 
Tertullian's  extreme  view,  such  as  the  Catholic  view  of 
marriage  and  second  nuptials  in  opposition  to  his  exag- 
gerated opinion  concerning  the  means  of  preserving  the 
high  Christian  ideals  of  purity. 

In  the  investigation  of  Tertullian's  concept  of  mortal 
sin  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  his  principal  expres- 
sions on  this  topic  are  to  be  found  in  his  Montanistic 
writing  De  Pudicitia.  The  futile  objection  that  a  Catho- 
lic concept  can  be  construed  in  an  a  priori  method  simply 
by  dropping  the  undesirable  elements  and  ascribing  their 
omission  to  Tertullian's  position  will  find  its  ready  ans- 
wer in  the  fact  that  Tertullian  himself  has  drawn  suffi- 
ciently discernible  lines  between  himself  and  the  opposi- 
tion.   Then,  too,  a  concept  cannot  be  construed  without 


^Ai  k! 


102  THE  TERTULLIANIC  TERM 

a  sufficient  basis,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  in  the  word- 
ing of  the  author,  in  whose  works  a  concept  is  sought.  A 
sufficient  basis  is  only  that  which  affords  a  plausible  in- 
terpretation of  the  author's  mind. 

It  is  a  significant  fact  that  the  term  mortal  does  not 
occur  in  any  other  work  of  Tertullian  outside  of  De 
Pudicitia,  It  is  a  quite  elementary  term  in  Christian 
morality,  and  the  expectation  that  Tertullian  would  have 
used  it  on  other  occasions  besides  in  the  attack  on  the  pa- 
pal edict  concerning  the  remissibility  of  a  certain  kind  of 
sins  finds  justification  in  the  consideration  that  Tertul- 
lian's  ascetico-moral  works  are  of  no  small  number  and 
length.  If  the  term  mortal  were  to  be  considered  pre- 
sumably the  equivalent  of  irremissible  in  Pvd,  there  is 
little  reason  to  find  it  used  in  any  other  work  which  does 
not  touch  on  the  topic  of  remission  of  sins.  There  might 
be  some  plausibility  to  the  assumption  that  Tertullian 
used  the  term  mortal  merely  in  view  of  the  well  known 
passage  of  I  John  V,  16.  As  we  shall  strive  to  show 
later,  the  texts  adduced  support  this  supposition  quite 
conclusively,  and  there  is  no  solid  reason  to  interpret 
Tertullian's  composition  otherwise.  The  details  of  this 
plausible  possibility  we  shall  take  up  in  the  course  of  the 
next  few  pages. 

The  term  mortal  occurs,  as  has  been  said,  only  in  De 
Pvdicitm.  It  occurs  several  times  in  this  work,  and  the 
passages  in  which  it  appears  are  grouped  together,  with 
the  exception  of  its  first  appearance,  namely  in  chapter 
3.  The  other  chapters  are  19  and  21.  In  the  former, 
Pvd.  19,  we  might  say  it  occurs  in  an  exegetical  capacity, 
and  is  used  to  summarize  Tertullian's  interpretation  of 
I  John  V,  16.  No  special  importance  is  apparent  in  the 
introduction  of  the  term  in  Pitd.  3,  nor  in  Pitd,  19,  which 
lack  of  explanation  can  be  interpreted  to  mean  that  mor- 
tal sin  is  an  accepted  technical  term  and  its  use  is  con- 
sidered quite  common  place,  or  that  mortal  is  an  ordinary 
adjective  (or  substantive-adjective  as  the  text  requires) 
of  a  merely  descriptive  capacity.  For  the  present  it  is 
not  of  decisive  importance  which  alternative  we  choose, 


THE  TERTULLIANIC  TERM  ^MORTAL**  103 

for  a  third  supposition  is  also  possible  and  makes  the 
speculation  as  to  the  relative  function  of  the  term  quite 
super jfluous.  We  may  suppose,  with  sufficient  probabil- 
ity, that  the  term  is  neither  in  the  stiate  of  technical 
terminology  nor  in  the  function  of  an  ordinary  adjective, 
but  that  it  is  in  the  transition  period.  Indeed,  after  some 
consideration  of  Tertullian's  use  of  the  word,  one  would 
be  inclined  to  think  that  he  is  taking  the  adjective  from 
the  rank  and  file  of  ordinary  descriptives  to  give  it  a 
definite  theologico-terminological  meaning. 

A  thorough  investigation  of  the  various  passages  in 
which  the  term  occurs  will  give  us  a  fair  concept  of  what 
Teutullian  wished  to  convey  by  his  use  thereof.  The 
term  first  appears  in  Pud.  Ill,  3 :  qvxintum  autem  ad  nos, 
qui  solum  Dominum  meminimus  delicta  concedere,  et 
utique  mortalia,  non  frustra  agetur  (set,  paenitentia)  .^ 
As  is  evident  from  the  context,  Tertullian  is  replying  to 
an  objection  of  the  Psychics,  namely,  that  if  there  be  no 
hope  of  pardon,  penance  is  useless.  From  the  fact  that 
there  is  no  introductory  or,  at  least,  no  explanatory 
clause  or  phrase  in  the  immediate  text  or  context,  one 
would  be  inclined  to  believe  that  Tertullian  was  using  a 
well  known  term. 

It  is  true  there  is  no  clue  to  the  cause  of  the  term's 
sudden  appearance  in  chapter  3,  which  chapter,  by  the 
way,  is  not  in  logical  sequence  with  the  preceding  or  the 
following  chapters.  It  deals,  namely,  entirely  with  the 
objection  mentioned,  the  solution  of  which  Tertullian 
wishes  to  give  in  due  time  in  order  to  do  away  with  the 
possible  accusation  of  inconsistency  in  his  general  sys- 
tem of  penance.  The  fear  of  the  accusation,  which  he 
saw  arising  in  the  mind  of  the  Psychics,  led  tim  to  break 
off  the  trend  of  his  treatise  to  check  the  harmful  influ- 
ence the  charge  of  inconsistency  would  have  on  his  read- 
ers. Tertullian  himself  seems  to  realize  that  in  his  sys- 
tem of  penance  there  is  indeed  a  contradiction  which 

I    Oehler,  Vol.  i,  p.  197,  lines  14,  15.— De  Labriolle  op.  cit.,  p.  68. 


104 

must  be  answered  at  all  costs.  Hence  this  chapter  3  is 
interjected. 

It  begins  with  a  sed  vrius.  There  is  however  in  the 
preceding  chapter  a  quotation  from  I  Johyi  V,  16  with  a 
few  exegetical  remarks,  which  would  let  us  understand 
the  use  of  the  term  mortalia  m  the  third  chapter. 
Proximity  must  supply  sequence  in  giving  a  reason  for  the 
use  of  the  term.  The  quotation  from  I  John  V,  16  deals 
with  the  sin  unto  death.-  In  the  quotation  and  in  Ter- 
tullian's  explanation  the  phrase  ad  mortem  occurs  three 
times.^  It  is  highly  probable  that  Tertullian  in  referring 
to  delicta  ad  mortem  in  the  third  chapter  simply  chose 
the  adjective  mortalia  in  place  of  the  descriptive  phrase 
delicta  ad  mortem.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  passage  in 
Pitd,  III  apparently  demands  the  adjective  form  in  pre- 
ference to  that  of  the  phrase.  The  construction  of  Ter- 
tullian's  reply  and  the  clearness  with  which  he  wishes  to 
state  it,  make  the  use  of  the  adjective  very  advisable. 

The  forensic  mind  of  Tertullian  would  not  permit  a 
disturbing  element  to  enter  into  what  he  probably  con- 
sidered a  most  explicit  statement  of  his  position.  If  Ter- 
tullian had  stated:  qui  solum  dominum  meminimus  de- 
licta ad  mortem  concedere,  in  place  of  the  setting  he  gave 
his  words:  qui  solum  dominum  meminimus  delicta  con- 
cedere, et  utique  mortalia,  the  statement  would  have  ap- 
parently lost  in  strength,  since,  in  the  preceding  chapter, 
the  singular  form  delictum  ad  mortem  had  the  Scriptural 
impress,  which  Tertullian  would  not  easily  pluralize. 
The  form  in  which  he  expressed  his  thought  seems 
preferable.  It  could  be  argued  that  a  repetition  of  the 
term  delicta  with  the  phrase  ad  mortem  would  have  been 
even  stronger  than  the  form  which  he  used,  but  as 
already  indicated  Tertullian  considered  it  poor  policy  to 

2  Clem.  "Die  christliche  Lehre  von  der  Suende,"  I,  p.  98,  Goet- 
tingen,  1897. 

3  "Pud."  II,  14,  Sed  et  Joannes  docebit :  "Si  quis  scit  fratrem 
suum  delinquere  delictum  non  ad  mortem,  postulabit,  et  dabitur 
vita  ei;  quia  non  ad  mortem  delinquit."  Hoc  erit  remissible.  "Est 
delictum  ad  mortem :  non  pro  illo  dico'  ut  quis  postulet."  Hoc  erit 
irremissibile. 


THE  TEBTULLIANIC  TERM  "MORTAL''  105 

tamper  with  Scriptural  form  when  the  same  results  could 
be  obtained  by  retaining  the  terms  used  in  Scriptural 
Writings  well  known  to  the  faithful.  Of  course,  Tertul- 
lian  knew  well  how  to  change  Scriptural  expressions 
when  necessity  in  extricating  himself  from  an  objection 
called  for  it.  We  would  say  that  in  Pud,  3  there  is  no 
apparent  reason  why  we  should  consider  the  term  mor- 
tale  one  of  recognized  standing  in  theological  termin- 
ology. 

One  reflection  however  urges  itself  upon  our  minds 
at  this  stage  of  the  investigation,  namely,  that  the  term 
in  the  interpretation  which  it  has  received  from  its  ex- 
planatory variation  of  the  Scriptural  ad  mortem  would 
most  probably  retain  the  content  here  given  it  by  Ter- 
tullian  because  of  the  outstanding  position  it  occupies 
through  its  connection  with  so  important  a  statement  as 
the  passage  quoted.  Its  further  use  in  Pvd,  will,  of 
course,  receive  importance,  meaning  and  direction  from 
the  beacon  passage  in  which  it  made  its  first  appearance. 
For  here  it  stands  so  to  speak  in  a  Tertullianic  thesis: 
nos  meminimus  solum  Dominum  delicta  concedere,  et 
utiqv£  mortalia.  The  concept,  therefore,  expressed  by 
the  term  mortal  here  is  that  which  corresponds  to  Ter- 
tullian's  exegetical  interpretation  of  I  John  V.  16,  de- 
lictum ad  mortem.  A  more  extensive  exegesis  of  this 
passage  from  John  we  find  in  Pud,  19  where  we  also 
have  the  next  application  of  the  term  delicta  mortalia. 

It  is  well  to  remember  before  proceeding  to  an  exam- 
ination of  Pud,  19  that  in  the  first  passage  (Pud,  3) 
we  have  sufficient  reason  to  believe  that  the  concept  of 
mortal  sin  as  distinguished  from  the  concept  of  venial 
sin  finds  no  challenging  denial.  It  is  not  at  all  a  settled 
matter  how  far  the  concept  of  a  delictum  ad  mortem  ex- 
tended in  Tertullian's  view,  or  what  sins  it  included  defi- 
nitely. As  is  quite  apparent  from  Pud,  2*  irremissibility 
and  mortal  sinfulness  were  co-extensive.  Remissibility 
and  irremissibility  were  Tertullian's  only  consideration. 

4    "John"  V,   i6,  "Hoc   erit   irremissible."    De   LabrioUe,   p.   66. 
Oehler  I,  p.  796,  lines  11  sqq. 


106  THE  TERTULLIANIC  TERM  ''MORTAL" 

The  objective  element,  gravity  of  matter  and  the  sub- 
jective prerequisites  free  will  and  understanding,  are 
not  at  all  in  Tertullian's  mind.  Even  the  infinite  malice 
of  grievous  sins  as  such  does  not  enter  into  the  discus- 
sion. Tertullian's  one  concern  was  to  construe  his  Mon- 
tanistic  doctrine  according  to  I  John  V,  16.  Evidently 
no  accommodation  for  the  denial  of  the  distinction 
between  mortal  and  venial  sin  can  be  found  in  the  pas- 
sage under  consideration  (Pud.  3).  If  Tertullian,  in  his 
in  Pud,  2. 

The  assertion  therefore  that  according  to  tradition  all 
sins  are  mortal,  would  not  find  any  support  in  the  pas- 
sage under  consideration  (Pud.  3).  If  Tertullian,  in  his 
Montanistic  rigorism,  would  have  held  that  all  sins  are 
mortal  there  would  most  probably  be  some  vestige  of  his 
opinion  in  this  or  the  other  texts  in  which  the  term  mor- 
tal occurs.  He  would  have  had  a  welcome  opportunity 
to  show  his  belief  that  some  sins  are  remitted  only  in  the 
next  life,  and  that  others,  though  mortal,  are  remitted 
even  in  this.^  Though  he  speaks  in  Pud.  2  of  the  sins 
that  are  remissible  he  makes  no  mention  of  the  malice 
of  sin  as  such. 

Of  course,  he  is  viewing  sin  only  as  the  cause  of  pen- 
ance, and  there  seems  to  be  no  doubt  about  the  kind  of 
penance  he  means,  namely  that  which  was  performed  in 
public.  Such  sins  came  under  his  consideration  that 
could  be  held  to  be  as  grievous  as  the  sins  against  purity. 
Hence  we  see  him  setting  himself  the  task  of  distinguish- 
ing thoroughly  and  forcefully  between  classes  of  serious 
sin.  The  concept  of  a  sin  that  does  not  belong  to  the 
classes  of  serious  transgressions  does  not  enter  into  the 
scope  of  the  chapter,  although,  as  some  parts  of  his  sec- 
ond chapter  indicate  in  which  he  treats  of  the  mutual 
forgiveness  of  faults  against  the  neighbor,  there  would 
undoubtedly  have  been  a  most  appropriate  occasion  to 
mention  the  allegedly  infinite  malice,  objective  and  sub- 

S    D'Ales,  "La  Theol.  dc  Tert."  p.  275- 


THE  TERTULLIANIC  TERM  "MORTAL'*  107 

jective,  of  every  offense,  not  only  of  the  offense  against 
the  angelic  virtue. 

The  argument  of  silence,  while  it  does  not  disprove 
the  Catholic  teaching,  does  not  favor  in  any  manner  the 
non-Catholic  view  indicated  above.  It  could  be  said  that, 
since  Tertullian  omitted  mentioning  the  classification  of 
sins  that  were  most  evidently  not  ad  mortem,  there  exist- 
ed no  traditional  doctrine  concerning  them.  The  same 
argument  could  be  used  to  prove  that  Tertullian  had  no 
knowledge  of  the  equality  of  all  offenses  with  respect  to 
their  infinite  malice,  for,  just  at  this  stage  of  Tertullian's 
explanations,  a  proposition  by  Tertullian  concerning  the 
allegedly  common  element  of  infinite  offense  to  be  found 
in  all  sins  would  at  once  have  clarified  the  state  of  the 
question  in  his  argument  with  the  Psychics. 

The  concept  then,  which  we  believe  accompanied  the 
word  mortal  in  this  treatise  as  evidenced  by  Pud.  2  and 
3  comprised  the  following  elements:  the  Church's  ina- 
bility to  restore  a  sinner  guilty  of  a  delictum  ad  mortem, 
to  membership,  the  restriction  of  the  power  of  remitting 
such  sin  to  God  alone,  and,  consequently,  a  gravity  of 
offense  that  took  the  offender  out  of  the  jurisdiction  and 
the  communion  of  the  Church.  The  term  delictum  ad 
mortem  has  therefore,  in  its  last  analysis,  most  probably 
the  meaning  that  before  death  there  is  no  sign  of  for- 
giveness. The  sinner  guilty  of  a  delictum  ad  mortem  is 
to  remain  outside  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Church,  he  is 
ecclesiastically  dead.  The  concept  does  not  deny  the  ex- 
istence of  the  classes  of  sin  that  are  mortal  in  our  pres- 
ent day  sense  nor  the  existence  of  sins  that  are  venial,  as 
the  term  is  understood  today  in  Catholic  teaching.  It 
plainly  does  not  assert  or  insinuate  the  opinion  that  all 
sins  are  equally  mortal  in  the  sense  of  infinite  offense. 

As  stated  above,  the  concept  of  delictum  ad  mortem,  or 
of  delictum  mortdle,  occurs  again  in  Pud.  19.  Here  we 
find  the  term  used  twice,  at  the  conclusion  of  a  chapter, 
in  which  we  find  Tertullian  strenuously  striving  to  dis- 
entangle several  apparently  conflicting  concepts  of  sin- 
fulness in  the  first  epistle  of  St.  John.    The  term  mortal, 


108  THE  TERTULLIANIC  TERM  "MORTAL" 

the  Tertullianic  sense  of  which  we  are  investigating  in 
these  paragraphs,  does  not  represent  however  a  concept 
different  from  the  one  implied  in  Pud  C* 

A  glance  at  the  text  and  context  in  which  the  term 
mortal  occurs  shows  that  it  is  merely  another  version 
of  the  Scriptural  phrase  ad  mortem.  In  preceding 
parts  of  Pud,  19  Tertullian  speaks  of  various  classifica- 
tions of  sin  which  are  mortal  in  the  sense  which  he  has 
applied  in  chapter  3.  There  is  no  evidence  whatsoever 
that  the  term  mortal  displays  any  new  phase  of  concept, 
or  that  it  is  used  in  a  manner  which  would  lead  us  to  be- 
lieve that  it  is  an  accepted  term  of  the  theology  of  Ter- 
tullian's  time.  In  describing  the  more  comprehensive 
classifications  of  sin  he  speaks  of  those  faults  which  are 
of  daily  occurence.  Nam  nee  ipsi  excidimAis  a  qua  di- 
gressi  sumus  distinctione  delictorum, — Et  hie  enim  Ulam 
loannes  commendavit,  quod  sint  quaedam  delicta  cotir- 
dianae  incursionis,  quibu^  omnes  simu^  obiecti. —  Sunt 
autem  et  contraria  istis,  ut  graviora  et  exitiosaJ^  He 
speaks  there  also  of  delicta  that  are  contrary  to  the  daily 
faults,  such  as  the  graver  ones  and  the  destructive  ones. 
Exitiosa  is  the  only  term  which  would  approximate  the 
meaning  of  the  term  mortal. 

There  is  one  probable  reason  why  Tertullian  did  not 
use  mortal  here  in  the  place  of  exitiosa,  though  the  term 
mortal  plainly  would  have  served  the  cause  of  Tertul- 
lian's  defense  more  because  of  immediate  clearness,  less, 
perhaps,  because  of  carrying  final  conviction.  The  term 
mortal,  as  we  have  seen,  has  been  used  in  Pud,  3  in  con- 
nection with  the  Scriptural  phrase  ad  mortem.  It  is 
again  at  the  end  of  Pud,  19  that  Tertullian  expatiates  on 

6  "Pud."  19,  Oehlcr  I,  p.  838,  lines  18  sqq.  Mcminerat  et  ipse 
Hieremiam  prohibitum  a  deo  deprecari  pro  populo  mortalia  de- 
linqucntc.  Omnis  iniustitia  delictum  est,  et  est  delictum  ad  mor- 
tein.  Scimus  autem,  quod  omnis  qui  ex  deo  natus  sit  non  delin- 
quit,  scilicet  delictum  quod  ad  mortem  est.  Ita  nihil  iam  superest 
quarn  aut  neges  moechiam  et  fornicationem  mortalia  esse  delicta, 
aut  inrcmissibilia  fatearis,  pro  quibus  nee  exorare  premittitur. — 
The  different  text  readings  do  not  influence  the  meaning  of  the 
term  mortal  in  this  chapter. 

7  "Pud."  19,  Ochler  I,  p.  837,  lines  29  sqq.  and  p.  838,  lines  6,  7- 


THE  TERTULLIANIC  TERM  "MORTAL"  109 

the  passage  from  St.  John,  which  uses  the  phrase  ad 
moHem  repeatedly.  Perhaps  it  is  for  the  purpose  of 
confirmation  that  Tertullian  uses  the  term  mortal  in  the 
immediate  connection  with  that  phrase  and  has  reserved 
its  use  for  the  specific  part  of  his  argument  in  chapter 
19  to  condemn  in  an  especial  manner  the  gravity  of 
moechm  and  fomicatio.  The  term  exitiosa  however  re- 
presents the  Tertullianic  concept  of  mortal  sufficiently 
well,  since  the  sins  termed  delicta  exitiosa  are  such  as 
receive  no  pardon  and  such  for  which  Christ  will  not  in- 
tercede.^ 

We  would  not  be  inclined  therefore  to  believe  that  any 
modification  of  the  Tertullianic  concept  of  mortal  has  ac- 
ceded to  the  use  of  the  term  in  the  part  of  Pud.  we  are 
now  considering.  Its  omission  in  connection  with  the 
classification  of  sins  enumerated  as  cotidiana,  graviora, 
exitiosa  would,  moreover,  argue  that  the  term  was  most 
probably  not  of  a  standardized  meaning.  In  fact,  its  quite 
commonplace  substitution  for  the  phrase  ad  mortem  at 
the  end  of  the  chapter  shows  that  there  was  most  pro- 
bably no  further  importance  to  be  attached  to  it.  Hence, 
it  would  be  merely  an  assumption,  and  not  a  demonstrat- 
ed fact,  that  the  term  mortal  had  an  accepted  termino- 
logical function  in  conveying  the  concept  of  a  certain 
classification  of  sins.  We  say  the  use  of  mortal  at  the  end 
of  Pvd.  19  seems  merely  a  substitute  for  the  phrase  ad 
mortem  and  consequently  represents  merely  the  concept 
which  Tertullian  had  in  his  exegetical  interpretation  of 
I  John  V,  16sqq.  If  we  examine  the  concluding  para- 
graph of  Pvd,  19  we  think  this  statement  will  find  suffi- 
cient support. 

The  final  paragraph  begins  with  the  sentence:  Ita 
loannis  ratio  constabit  etc.^  The  paragraph  is  not  so 
much  a  summary  of  the  preceding  explanation  of  the  ap- 
parently conflicting  statements  in  St.  John  that  those 
born  of  God  do  not  sin  (I  John  III,  9)  and  that  if  we  say 


8  "Pud."  19,  Oehler  I,  p.  838,  lines  7  sqq.,  "exitiosa,  quae  veniam 
non  capiant. — Horum  ultra  exorator  non  erit  Christus." 

9  Ibid.,  lines  11  sqq. 


110  THE  TERTULLIANIC  TERM  "MORTAL'' 

we  have  no  sin  we  deceive  ourselves  and  the  truth  is  not 
in  us  (IJohn  1,  8),  as  it  is  a  conclusion  against  the 
Psychics  in  the  presentation  of  the  dilemma:  aut  mor- 
talicb  delicta  aut  irt^emissibilia  fatearis.  The  term  mortal 
occurs  only  after  Tertullian  has  again  adduced  the  Scrip- 
tural phrase — three  times  to  be  precise. 

The  verse  from  I  John  V,  16  is,  therefore,  the  basis 
on  which  Tertullian  constructs  his  concept  of  mortal  sin, 
using  the  term  as  Tertullian  considers  it  interpretative 
of  St.  John's  text.  No  introductory  or  explanatory 
clauses  are  used  to  describe  the  term  in  its  setting  at  the 
end  of  Pud.  19.  Its  mere  association  with  the  Scriptural 
text  which  uses  the  phrase  ad  mortem  repeatedly  suffices 
to  indicate  the  purpose  for  which  Tertullian  intended  it. 
To  give  it  more  importance  than  that  of  substitution 
seems  to  place  an  interpretation  on  its  use  that  would 
not  be  in  accordance  with  a  primary  rule  of  text  explana- 
tion, namely,  that  a  text  is  to  be  understood  as  it  stands 
in  its  objective  reading,  unless  sufficient  reasons  suggest 
other  meanings. 

The  remaining  text  in  which  the  term  mortal  occurs 
is  found  in  Pud.  21 :  Quis  enim  dimittit  delicta,  ni  solus 
deus?  et  utique  mortalia  quae  in  ipsum  fuerint  admissa, 
et  in  templum  eius.^^  This  passage  is  the  only  one  in 
which  the  term  mortal  receives  any  further  description 
than  that  given  by  the  context.  In  other  passages  from 
Tertullian  on  the  term  mortal,  the  whole  significance  of 
the  term  was  derived  from  the  immediate  connection 
with  the  Scriptural  phrase  ad  mortem.  Here  Tertullian 
presupposes  the  difficulty  concerning  the  forgiveness  of 
the  delictum  ad  mortem  as  a  settled  matter.     The  sen- 

10  Oehler  I,  p.  842,  lines  4,  5.— The  edition  "Joh.  Gangneii," 
Paris,  1545,  has  one  small  variation  which  will  not  affect  the  text 
reading  decisively,  though  it  gives  rise  to  a  probable  interpreta- 
tion. This  edition  has :  et  utique  mortalia  quod  in  ipsum  fuerint 
admissa  et  in  templum  ejus.  The  quod  refers  most  probably  to  the 
preceding  question:  quis  enim  demittit  delicta  ni  solus  deus?, 
though  it  is  not  excluded  that  quod  could  refer  to  mortalia  by  way 
of  explanation  of  the  term.  Then  however  it  would  have  the  same 
meaning  as  the  relative  clause  given  in  the  editions  of  Oehler  and 
Wissowa. 


THE  TERTULLIANIC  TERM  ''MORTAL"  111 

tence  in  which  the  term  occurs  is  merely  a  rhetorical 
question.^^  Of  the  four  instances  in  which  the  term  mor- 
tal  is  used  by  Tertullian  the  passage  taken  from  Pvd.  21 
is  the  only  one  which  does  not  refer  to  St.  John's  expres- 
sion delictum  ad  mortem  either  in  the  text  or  in  the  imme- 
diate context.  However,  sufficient  emphasis  had  been 
placed  on  the  association  of  the  term  with  the  expres- 
sion ad  mortem  in  a  former  part  of  Pud.  It  is  not  to  be 
assumed  that  Tertullian  would  be  obliged  to  repeat,  after 
the  interposition  of  a  chapter  of  average  length,  the  con- 
nection between  the  phrase  and  the  adjective  expression 
of  the  context.  There  is  not  sufficient  reason  to  believe 
that  this  one  passage,  in  which  the  Scriptural  expression 
has  been  omitted,  or  better  said,  does  not  occur,  can  es- 
tablish the  accepted  usage  of  the  term  mortal. 

The  most  we  can  admit  is  that  Tertullian  himself  is 
coining,  in  this  passage,  the  term  for  future  use.  No 
doubt  his  writings  had  a  wide  circle  of  readers.  The  re- 
peated use  of  the  term  in  connection  with  the  Scriptural 
phrase  and  its  detached  appearance  would  perhaps  suffice 
to  give  his  large  number  of  readers  an  acquaintance  with 
the  term  and  its  concept  which  would  make  for  a  gen- 
eral acceptance  of  the  newly  appearing  theological 
expression. 

While,  therefore,  Tertullian's  use  of  the  term  in  the 
last  passage  quoted  might  be  considered  as  introducing 
mortal  as  the  most  appropriate  expression  and  suggest- 
ing it  to  the  theological  thinkers  of  his  day,  there  can  be 
no  conclusive  evidence  brought  to  show  that  the  term 
was  already  established  and  accepted.  Not  only  can  no 
conclusive  evidence  be  brought,  but  the  indications  are 
all  the  other  way.  The  dependent  use  of  the  term  in  Pud. 
3  and  19  would  argue  that  the  term  was  used  merely  as 
a  substituent  adjective  without  any  further  importance 
attached  to  it.  Even  the  detached  use  of  mortal  in  Pud. 
21  does  not  make  the  impression  of  an  independent  term 

II  The  difference  between  the  Oehler  and  the  Wissowa  texts, 
in  matters  of  punctuation  of  the  passage  in  question,  is  not  con- 
sequential. 


112  THE  TERTULLIANIC  TERM  "MORTAL" 

in  view  of  the  fact  that  its  use  in  this  chapter  follows 
closely  on  the  use  of  the  term  strongly  stressed  as  depen- 
dent and  substitutive  at  the  end  of  Ptid.  19.  Then 
too,  we  should  not  forget  that  Tertullian,  in  all  probabili- 
ty, would  have  used  an  accepted  term  with  much  more 
frequency  in  a  writing  of  the  nature  of  De  Pudicitia, 
Had  delictum  mortale  been  a  well  established  theological 
expression,  there  is  all  reason  to  believe  that  Tertullian 
would  have  applied  it  with  telling  effect  in  other  pas- 
sages besides  those  investigated  above.  If  delictum  mor- 
tale was  an  accepted  term  and  Tertullian  was  giving  it 
a  different  meaning  we  should  undoubtedly  find  proof 
thereof  in  some  passage  of  Pud,,  especially  in  the  out- 
standing parts  that  show  the  differences  between  him 
and  the  Psychics.  Since  there  is  not  the  slightest  indi- 
cation of  proof  in  support  of  the  supposition  that  Ter- 
tullian was  using  an  accepted  term  but  with  the  purpose 
of  giving  it  a  new  concept,  we  must  return  to  the  specu- 
lation made  above. 

A  consideration,  perhaps  worthy  of  more  importance 
than  the  preceding  argument,  may  be  found  in  the  fact 
that  Tertullian  is  devoting  his  effort  in  the  passages 
quoted  to  give  a  Montanistic  interpretation  to  the  Scrip- 
tural expression  delictum  ad  mortem.  At  least  he  tries 
to  turn  the  expression  with  its  content  and  purpose  in 
favor  of  the  Montanistic  doctrine  on  the  irremissibility 
of  certain  sins.  It  is  quite  clear  then  that  in  the  pas- 
sage quoted  Tertullian  gives  the  expression  his  own  in- 
terpretation. 

What  precisely  the  Psychic  view  on  this  matter  was 
cannot  be  gathered  sufficiently  well  from  Tertullian's 
works.  There  is,  however,  enough  contrast  of  doctrine 
mentioned  to  permit  a  deduction  therefrom  as  to  the 
general  outlines  of  the  Psychics*  contention.  At  all 
events  the  term  mortal,  corrected  or  not  corrected,  does 
not  play  an  important  part,  and  the  fact  does  not  even 
come  in  for  mention  as  a  matter  on  which  a  change  of 
discipline  or  of  faith  is  to  be  registered.  Since  however 
the  concept  of  mortal  sin  in  the  Tertullianic  sense  is  per- 
haps the  most  salient  point  in  the  whole  argument  be- 
tween Tertullian  and  the  Psychics,  at  least  from  the 


THE  TERTULLIANIC  TERM  "MORTAL"  113 

angle,  of  remissibility  or  irremissibility  of  sins,  it  is  quite 
evident  that  the  use  of  a  supposedly  accepted  term  would 
enter  into  the  discussion  for  a  large  share  of  explana- 
tion not  only  in  the  state  of  the  question  but  also  in  the 
development  of  the  argumentation.  If  the  argument  ex 
silentio  or  rather  ex  omissione  is  frequently  unsatisfac- 
tory because  of  undiscovered  probable  explanations  and 
untouched  viewpoints  it  nevertheless,  with  strong  col- 
lateral indications,  speaks  against  the  assumption  it 
tries  to  disprove. 

The  term  mortal,  as  we  see  in  the  passage  under  con- 
sideration, namely  Pud,  21  is  modified  by  the  clause: 
qvue  in  ipsum  fuerint  admissa,  et  in  templum  ems.  The 
various  readings  which  make  the  clause  either  relative 
(descriptive,  definitive,  restrictive,  explanatory)  or 
causal,  do  not  affect  decisively  the  concept  (Tertullianic) 
of  mortal.  We  may  safely  assume  the  Oehler  and 
Wissowa  reading  as  relative. 

If  we  begin  with  the  context  we  find  thiee  classes  of 
sin  mentioned.  We  shall  put  aside  for  the  present  the 
question  as  to  whether  all  of  the  classes  mentioned  are 
mortal  in  the  Tertullianic  sense.  In  the  text  itsel^  we 
have  the  two  classes  of  sin :  those  against  God  and  those 
against  His  temple.  In  the  sentence  immediately  follow- 
ing we  find  the  third  division,  namely,  the  sins  against 
the  neighbor.  Nam  tibi  qime  in  te  reatum  habeant  etiam 
septvugies  septies  luberis  indulgere  in  persona  Petri^^ 
A  strict  adherence  to  this  division  is  not  evidenced  in 
this  chapter,  for  toward  the  end  of  it  we  find  the  classi- 
fications reduced  to  the  two:  delicta  in  dominum  and 
delicta  in  fratrem  also  termed  delicta  in  deum,  and  de- 
licta in  homine?^  Nor  can  we  state  that  the  division  is 
edaquate  in  the  sense  that  the  formal  objects  against 
which  the  delicta  in  deum  and  the  delicta  iri  fratrem  are 
committed  are  adequately  distinct.  The  distinction  be- 
tween the  two  larger  divisions  of  sin  ( — we  count  the  sins 
in  deum  and  in  templum  eius  under  one  heading  as  Ter- 
tullian  himself  does,  though  we  do  not  understand  why 

12  "Pud."  21,  Oehler  I,  p.  842,  lines  5  sqq. 

13  The  text  reading  here  should  most  probably  be  in  hominem. 
The  use  of  the  ablative  has  no  manifest  purpose. 


''■iiirr\T»mAT  ** 


114  THE  TERTULLIANIC  TERM  "MORTAL 

the  latter  class  is  not  mentioned  at  end  of  c.  21^* — )  seems 
here  to  be  based  entirely  on  the  remissibility  of  sin. 

As  we  have  seen,  in  describing  the  nature  of  sin  ac- 
cording to  Tertullian's  view,  the  ultimate  object  against 
which  sin  is  committed,  is  God  Himself.  There  is  no  ap- 
parent reason  to  believe  that  Tertullian  changed  his 
viewpoint  on  this  matter.  The  sins  in  fratrem  would 
most  probably  mean  the  sins  against  charity,  formally 
as  such,  though  the  enumeration  of  fraud  among  the  ir- 
remissible  sins,  Pud,  19,  here  again  comes  forth  as  an 
objection,  since  fraud  is  against  justice,  formally  as  such, 
and,  as  stated  above,  is  immediately  against  the  neighbor 
and  only  mediately  against  God.  The  division  therefore 
is  not  a  clear-cut,  distinct  classification  of  sins  and  seems 
to  take  into  consideration  merely  the  element  of  irremis- 
sibility.  We  admit  that  this  explanation  of  the  distinc- 
tion between  sins  against  God  and  sins  against  the 
neighbor  might  not  be  satisfactory,  but  we  believe  that 
the  recourse  to  the  basis  of  the  distinction  as  being  the 
immediateness  or  mediateness  of  the  object,  against 
which  sin  is  committed,  merely  moves  the  difficulty 
further  back  and  places  it  under  different  terms. ^^ 

The  Tertullianic  concept  of  the  term  mortal,  as  we 
have  thus  far  found  it  presented,  would  be  applicable  to 
the  sins  against  God  and  His  temple.  The  sins  against 
the  neighbor,  therefore,  would  not  be  placed  under  the 
title  mortal  and  in  this  passage,  accordingly,  would  have 
to  be  distinguished  as  non-mortal,  provided  this  passage 
Itself  does  not  disprove  the  whole  fabric  of  the  assump- 
tion that  mortal,  in  the  Tertullianic  sense,  is  to  be  under- 
stood as  we  have  tried  to  construe  his  use  of  the  term. 

There  is  a  possible  interpretation  of  the  clause:  wx)r'' 
talia  qvjae  in  ipsum  fuerint  admissa,  et  in  templum  eius, 
which  would  give  ground  for  a  serious  objection  to  our 
manner  of  understanding  Tertullian's  concept  of  mortal. 

14  Namely  in  the  sentence:  nisi  forte  ea  quae  in  dominum,  non 
in  fratrem,  quis  admiserit,  "Pud."  21,  Oehler  I,  p.  844,  lines  4,  5. 

15  We  have  referred  in  the  preceding  chapter  to  Esser's  at- 
tempt at  a  solution  of  Harnack's  difficulty  concerning  the  division 

of  sins  committed  against  God. 


THE  TERTULLIANIC  TERM  "MORTAL"  115 

Namely,  if  we  take  the  clause  in  a  restrictive  sense,  et 
utique  mortalia  will  mean  the  following:  and,  of  course, 
only  those  sins  among  the  mortal  ones  which  are  com- 
mitted against  God  and  His  temple.  The  wording  of  the 
text  itself  would  not  justify  this  restrictive  interpreta- 
tion, but  in  the  following  sentence  the  sins  against  the 
neighbor  are  so  strongly  set  in  contrast  with  the  preced- 
ing that  there  could  nevertheless  some  basis  be  found 
for  this  restriction.  However,  the  restrictive  interpreta- 
tion seems  rather  forced.  Tertullian's  usual  clearness 
of  expression  would  have  suffered  an  exception.  True, 
only  in  the  light  of  a  restrictive  interpretation  would 
the  mention  of  fraud  among  the  delicta  exitiosa  find  any 
justification,  but  then  that  consideration  looks  in  vain 
for  a  solution  of  the  difficulty  that,  on  the  one  hand,  fraud 
is  considered  one  of  the  crimes  that  receive  no  pardon 
and,  on  the  other, — assuming  that  it  is  a  delictum  in  fra- 
trem — we  find  it  among  those  which  we  are  commanded 
to  forgive.'^ 

The  difficulty  makes  itself  felt  as  a  striking  inconsist- 
ency, an  oversight,  on  the  part  of  Tertullian,  in  reconcil- 
ing the  gravity  of  a  serious  sin  against  the  neighbor  with 
his  system  of  remissible  and  irremissible  sin.  We  are 
not  aware  that  there  is  any  passage  in  Tertullian's 
works  which  would  construct  fraud  as  not  being  a  sin 
directly  against  the  neighbor.  If  there  should  be  a  diff- 
erent explanation  of  this  term  which  would  eliminate 
the  difficulty  mentioned  above  and  thereby  place  fraud 
among  the  delicta  in  dominum  we  should  undoubtedly 
gain  a  much  clearer  concept  of  Tertullian's  system  of  sin 
classification.  Until  some  such  solution  is  offered,  the 
reader  of  Tertullian's  De  Pudicitia  will,  we  believe,  be 
impressed  with  the  inconsistency  of  his  division  of  sin 
in  so  far  as  the  division  according  to  remissibility  and 
irremissibility  appears  to  be  a  forced  one.  The  accusa- 
tion of  insincerity  and  willful  misleading  of  his  readers, 

i6  "Pud."  21,  Oehler  I,  p.  842,  lines  5  sqq. :  Nam  tibi  quae  in  te 
reatum  habeant  etiam  septuagies  septies  iuberis  indulgere  in  per- 
sona Petri. 


116  THE  TERTULLIANIC  TERM  "MORTAL" 

which  has  been  insinuated  by  D'Ales^*,  is  not  removed 
but  rather  aggravated  by  the  manipulation  of  concepts 
to  serve  the  end  of  argument  rather  than  to  meet  the 
requirements  of  veracity. 

If,  then,  we  assume  that  the  clause:  qvxie  in  ipsum 
fuerint  admissa,  et  in  templum  eiits  is  not  restrictive  in 
the  sense  just  considered,  but  explanatory,  we  have  an 
element  in  the  Tertullianic  concept  of  the  term  mortal 
which  gives  us  a  better  insight  into  the  extent  of  the 
matter  that  comes  under  the  title  of  delicta  ad  mortem,  or 
delicta  mortalia.  With  reference  to  the  first  class  of  sin, 
those  in  dominum,  we  may  well  reckon  idolatry  among 
them.^^  Blasphemy,  also,  and  denial  of  faith  may  be  plac- 
ed in  that  class.  Whether  the  blasphemia  and  negatio 
are  to  be  considered  as  distinct  species  of  sin  is  not  a 
settled  matter.  Negatio  seems  to  be  another  term  for 
apostasy. ^^  Blasphemy  taken  in  the  sense  of  blasphemia 
spiritits^^  would  be  a  more  intense  degree,  perhaps,  of 
negatio.  Of  course,  if  it  is  taken  in  the  sense  of  Mark 
II,  7,2^  it  bears  a  most  distinct  stamp  of  a  delictum  in  do- 
minum. 

The  sin  of  murder  causes  some  difficulty  as  to  its 
classification.  D'Ales  considers  it  under  the  heading  of 
sins  committed  directly  against  God."  Naturally 
enough,  he  finds  it  difficult  to  consider  murder  a  delictum 
in  deum,  but  sees  a  feebly  plausible  solution  in  the  re- 
flection that  man  is  the  image  of  God  and  that,  conse- 
quently, murder  is  directed  at  least  against  the  image. 
But  why  not  make  a  distinction  between  sins  in  fratrem 
and  sins  in  templum  dei?  Why  could  murder  not  be  con- 
sidered a  delictum  in  templum  dei  rather  than  a  sin  in 


17  "L'fidit.  de  Call.,"  pp.  198,  199. 

18  D'Ales,  "L'fidit.  de  Call."  p.  209. 

19  Ibid.  p.  208. 

20  Bingham,  "Antiquities,"  Vol.  VI,  pp.  327  sqq.,  Oxford,  1855. 

21  "Why  doth  this  man  speak  thus?  he  blasphemeth.    Who  can 
forgive  sins,  but  God  only?" 

22  D'Ales,  "L'fidit.  de  Call."  p.  309. 


I, 


THE  TERTULLIANIC  TERM  "MORTAL"  117 

fratrem?  That  would  obviate  the  difficulty  D'Ales  pro- 
poses. It  is  true  that  murder  is  objectively  considered 
always  a  delictum  in  fratrem  but  it  cannot  be  asserted 
that  the  delicta  in  fratem,  in  the  Tertullianic  sense,  cov- 
ered our  present  view  of  such  sins  as  they  are  in  object- 
ive reality. 

It  would  appear  from  Pud.  21  that  delicta  in  fratrem 
are  principally  sins  against  charity  as  such,  also,  most 
probably,  sins  against  justice  as  such.  The  impression 
one  gains  from  reading  the  chapter  mentioned  is  that 
the  sins  in  fratrem  are  those  that  are  mentioned  in 
Matth,  XVIII,  21sqq.  and  in  Luke  XVII,  4.  It  is  not 
necessary  to  restrict  the  expression  delicta  in  templum 
dei  to  the  sins  against  chastity,  although  we  admit  that 
from  the  enumeration  of  the  delicta  exitiosia  in  Pud,  19 
it  would  seem  most  appropriate.  The  ultimate  reason 
for  the  malice  of  murder  is  not  mentioned  in  any  work 
of  Tertullian,  and  there  is  no  context  that  would  give  us 
an  insight  into  his  mind  on  this  question.  The  reason 
given  for  assuming  murder  to  be  a  sin  against  God, 
namely  because  man  is  the  image  of  God,  is  in  itself  no 
more  urgent  than  the  reason  for  assuming  murder  to  be 
a  sin  against  God's  temple,  namely,  the  fact  that  the  body 
has  been  consecrated  in  baptism  to  the  Holy  Spirit.^^ 

That  sins  of  impurity  are  considered  delicta  in  tern- 
plum  dei  is  apparent  from  various  passages  of  Tertul- 
lians*  works.^*  What  sins  of  impurity  are  precisely  to  be 
considered  as  violatio  templi  dei  is  not  so  definite  as  to 
extent.  We  do  not  enter  here  in  the  question  as  to  the 
differences  between  the  various  sins  of  impurity,  as  for 
instance,  whether  the  concept  of  fornication  in  the  day 
of  Tertullian  differed  from  the  one  conveyed  by  the  pre- 
sent day  textbook  definition.    We  wish  to  give  merely  a 


23  Compare,  in  reference  to  the  latter  reason,  the  two  texts 
from  Scripture  which  Tertullian  has  adduced  as  mutually  inter- 
pretative :  I  "Cor."  VI,  15 :  Non  scitis  corpora  vestra  membra  sunt 
Christi?  quia  et  Christus  dei  templum.  "John"  II,  19:  Evertite  tem- 
plum hoc,  et  ego  illud  in  triduo  resuscitabo. — "Pud."  16,  Oehler  I, 
p.  827,  lines  8  sqq-  Compare  also  "Pud."  6,  Oehler  I,  p.  802,  line  25, 
p.  803,  lines  I  sqq. — As  to  the  meaning  of  templum  dei  as  the  Chris- 
tian community  see  D'Ales,  op.  cit.,  loc.  cit. 

24  E.  g.  "Pud."  6,  Oehler  I,  p.  803,  lines  3  sqq.  "Pud."  16,  ibid., 
p.  827,  lines  10  sqq.    "Cult.  Fem."  II,  i,  ibid.  p.  714,  lines  6  sqq. 


118  THE  TERTULLIANIC  TERM  '"MORTAL" 

general  outline  of  the  sins  that  would  come  under  the 
heading  which  Tertullian  termed  mortalia  delicta  in 
templum  dei.  Adultery,  fornication  and  several  other 
sins  of  impurity  come  under  this  title.-^  Do  sins  of  im- 
pure thought  or  desire  violate  the  temple  of  God  accord- 
ing to  Tertullian's  view?  We  are  not  aware  that  in  his 
work  De  Pudicitia  there  is  any  indication  of  his  opinion 
on  this  matter.  From  chapter  4  however  we  may  de- 
duce with  some  certainty  that  the  sins  against  the  temple 
of  God  are  to  be  understood  as  sins  of  deed.  In  this 
chapter  he  expressly  takes  up  the  question  as  to  the 
gravity  of  sin:  censum  delictorum,  an  ea  sint  qicae 
veniam  ah  hominibus  consequi  possint.^^  No  mention  is 
made  of  sins  other  than  those  of  deed.  Even  clandestine 
marriages  are  censured  as  subject  to  the  danger  of  being 
judged  by  the  same  standard  as  moechia  and  fomicatior'^ 
He  concludes  his  remark  on  the  scope  of  adultery  and 
fornication  with  classifying  other  frenzies  of  impure 
passions  as  monstrosities.^* 

The  expression  ultra  jura  naturae,  obviously  leaves 
room  for  speculation,  at  least  if  we  consider  it  from  the 
angle  from  which  Tertullian  could  have  viewed  it, 
especially  in  his  Montanistic  period.  It  would  seem  that 
by  the  expression  he  meant  all  sins  of  impurity  against 
nature,  contra  jura  naturae,  but  since  his  Montanistic  at- 
titude colored  his  views  with  rigorism  and  especially  his 
views  on  matters  relating  to  chastity,  it  is  impossible  to 
state  exactly  what  crimes  he  included  among  the  mon- 
strosities. 

It  would  be  interesting  to  know  what  his  views  were 
on  masturbation,  but  since  there  is  nowhere  in  his  works 
mention  made  of  this  sin,  we  can  only  make  a  probable 
deduction  as  to  his  opinion  on  it  from  passages  dealing 

25  "Apol."  XI,  Oehler  I,  p.  159,  lines  10,  11:  incesti  in  sorores  et 
maritarum  adulteri  et  virginum  raptores  et  puerorum  contamina- 
tores. 

26  "Pud."  4,  Oehler  I,  p.  797. 

27  Ibid.  op.  cit,,  p.  798. 

28  Ibid.  Reliquas  autem  libidinum  furias  impias  et  in  corpora 
et  in  sexus  ultra  jura  naturae,  non  modo  limine,  verum  omni  ec- 
clesiae  tecto  submovemus,  quia  non  sunt  delicta,  sed  monstra. 


THE  TERTULLIANIC  TERM  ''MORTAL"  119 

either  with  sins  against  chastity  in  general  or  with  sins 
that  bear  some  similiarity  with  self-abuse,  such  as 
pederasty.  Judging  from  the  ordinary  severity  with 
which  Tertullian  treats  all  sins  of  impurity  and  the 
temptations  that  lead  thereto,  we  would  be  inclined  to 
believe  that  he  considered  self -abuse  as  a  violation  of  the 
•  temple  of  God  which  needed  no  special  mention.  If  we 
analyze  the  closing  sentence  of  chapter  4 :  Reliquas  autem 
libidinum  fmixis  etc.  we  do  not  believe  that  we  would 
place  it  among  the  monstrosities.  For  can  we  interpret 
reliqvjobs  libidinum  furias  so  as  to  include  self -abuse?  If 
we  compare  other  passages  in  which  the  term  furia  is 
used  we  find  that  it  has  an  element  of  scandal  or  of  sin- 
ning with  others  that  aggravates  its  malice.  Thus  for 
instance  we  find  the  term  used  in  Apol.  6:  licet  Baccho 
iam  Italico  furias  vestras  immoletis,^^  likewise  in  Apol, 
37 :  Ipsis  Bacchanalium  furiis  nee  mortuis  parcunt  Chris- 
tianis:-^''  Then,  too,  the  term  would  seem  to  be  a  mis- 
nomer for  self  abuse. 

Since  we  cannot  well  bring  self -abuse  under  the  sins 
described  by  Tertullian  as  monstrosities  and  find  no 
place  for  it  among  the  ordinary  sins  against  chastity,  we 
are  brought  to  the  probable  conclusion  that  the  sins  Ter- 
tullian delt  with  especially  in  Pud.  were  sins  that  came 
under  the  observation  of  others,  sins  that  were  not 
strictly  private.  It  is  perhaps  this  reason  which  led  Ter- 
tullian to  omit  the  mention  of  self-abuse  in  Pud.  Why 
he  omitted  mentioning  it  in  other  works  can,  as  insinu- 
ated above,  be  a  matter  of  conjecture  only.  Whether  he 
comprehended  it  under  the  term  mollities  remains  like- 
wise hidden  to  investigation. 

Of  course  the  clause,  si  quxi  alia  violatio  templi  dei  in 
Pvd.  19,  is  rather  broad  and  includes  in  a  general  way 
the  sins  against  purity.  The  proximity  of  the  condi- 
tional clause  to  the  mention  of  moechia  and  fornicatio  in- 


29  Oehler  I,  p.  136,  lines  13,  14. — Furiae  is  here  well  translated 
with  "orgies"  in  "Anf."  Ill,  p.  23. 

30  Oehler  I,  p.  249,  line  21.    The  translation  in  "Anf."  Ill,  p.  45, 
is  not  so  well  rendered:  "with  the  frenzy  of  the  Bacchanals." 


120  THE  TERTULLIAN  TERM  "MORTAL" 

clines  us  to  accept  the  expression  violatio  templi  dei  in 
this  passage  as  referring  to  sins  of  impurity,  though  we 
have  our  doubts  about  making  this  an  exclusive  interpre- 
tation, since  violatio  templi  dei,  as  we  have  shown  above, 
could  include  murder,  and  sins  against  the  fifth  com- 
mandent.  The  expression,  in  all  probability,  fluctuat- 
ed as  to  its  conceptual  content  and  must  accordingly  be 
judged  principally  from  the  context.  If  we  are  to  be- 
lieve that  the  enumeration  of  sins  in  chapter  19  of  Pud. 
(the  delicta  exitiosa)  is  an  adequately  complete  one,  then 
we  must  interpret  the  clause  si  qua  alia  violatio  templi 
dei  as  having  a  definite  meaning,  that  is,  we  must  take  it 
to  stand  for  some  other  sin  or  sins  besides  moechia  and 
fomicatio,  Tertullian  is  not  concerning  himself  in  Pud, 
with  monstra,  sins,  that  are  tdtra  jura  natu7ue.  Thus 
the  sin  or  sins  comprehended  by  the  clause  in  question  lie 
between  the  sins  citra  jura  naturae,  namely  moechia  and 
fomicatio,  and  those  ultra  jura  naturae. 

There  is  unfortunately  no  passage  in  Tertullian  that 
would  permit  us  to  construe  his  view  on  what  constitutes 
a  sin  that  is  not  ultra  naturae.  A  passage  in  Ad 
Nationes  I,^^  c.  4:  Ipsi  suxim  licuit  in  perversum  demv^ 
tare  naturam,  mulieri  non  permisit  in  melius  reformari, 
is  in  a  context  that  permits  of  a  varied  interpretation 
and  consequently  cannot  be  adduced  as  decisive  in  the 
question  before  us.  The  passages  from  Adv.  Marc.  V, 
15^2 :  Lex  naturae  luxuriae  est,  turpiaudini  quoque  et  im- 
munditiae  contraria,  and  Libido  autem  n^c  apud  gentes 
matrimonio  adscribitur,  sed  extra-ordinariis  et  non  twl- 
turalibu^  et  poyi^entuosis  are  not  definite  enough  to  give 
the  concept  required.^^  Speaking  of  the  reverence  due 
the  naturalness  of  the  reproductive  process,  Tertullian 
expresses  himself  rather  unclear  on  the  extent  of  natur- 
al law :  Natura  veneranda  est,  non  erubescenda.    Concu- 

31  Oehler  I,  p.  312  lines  16,  17. 

32  Oehler  II,  p.  319,  lines  13  sqq. 

33  There  are  various  readings  of  this  passage.  Oehler's  is  fol- 
lowed by  "Anf."  The  following  reading  gives  the  opposite  sense 
of  Oehler's :  Luxuria  est  turpitudini  quoque  et  immunditiae  non 
contraria.    Cf.  Oehler  Vol.  II,  p.  319  footnote. 


THE  TERTULLIANIC  TERM  "MORTAL"  121 

bitum  libido,  non  condicio  foedavit.  Excessus,  non  status 
est  impvdicits,  siquidem  benedictus  statvs  apud  deum; 
Cresdte  et  in  multitudinem  proficite.  Excessus  vero 
maledictus,  ddulteria  et  stupra  et  lupanaria.  In  hoc 
itaque  sollemni  sexuum  officio  quod  marem  ac  feminam 
miscet,  in  concubitu  dico  comniuni,  scimu^  et  animam  et 
carnem  simul  fungi,  animam  concupiscentia,  carnem 
opera,  animam  instinctu,  carnem  actu.^^  Here  the  ex- 
cessive is  contrasted  with  the  natural.  Adultery  and 
other  sins  of  impurity  are  mentioned  as  excesses. 
Sodomy  and  bestiality  are  plainly  condemned  in  accord- 
ance with  Leviticus  XX,  13,  15  as  monstrosities  and  as 
ultra  jura  naturae.^^ 

While  we  cannot  state  with  any  precision  the  concept 
of  Tertullian  on  the  extent  of  natural  law  in  the  matter 
of  chastity,  we  may  conclude  with  plausible  certainty 
that  he  considered  sodomy  and  bestiality  as  against  na- 
ture, and,  most  probably,  such  sins  as  mutual  abuse.^^® 

We  have  attempted  to  give  an  outline  of  the  sins  in 
the  Tertullianic  sense  of  the  term  mortal.  The  enumera- 
tion must  of  its  very  nature  be  incomplete  since  the 
term  mortal  supplanting  the  Scriptural  phrase  ad  mor- 
tem had  a  different  concept  among  the  Psychics  than  it 
did  among  the  Pneumatics.  Even  Tertullian  looked  upon 
the  term,  or  better  said,  its  contents  in  a  changing  light 
as  time  passed  and  his  opinions  changed  from  his  mod- 
erate Catholic  interpretation  of  Christian  morality  to 
narrow-minded  Montanism. 

To  return  briefly  to  the  consideration  of  the  passage 


34  "Anim."  27,  Oehler  II,  p.  600,  lines  8  sqq. 

35  "Adv.  Marc."  I,  c.  29.  Oehler  II,  p.  82,  lines  20  sqq :  morte 
punientis  et  incestam,  sacrilegam  atque  monstruosam  in  mascu- 
los  et  in  pecudes  libidium  insaniam.  The  insania  incesta  refers  to 
"Lev."  XX,  12,  14  et  al.,  ibid.,  the  insania  sacrilega  most  probably 
to  "Lev."  XX  2-5.  It  would  appear  from  this  passage  of  Tertullian 
that  incestuous  and  sacrilegious  intercourse  are  not,  in  his  opin- 
ion, against  nature,  if  we  may  judge  Tertullian  to  have  used  mon- 
strum  both  here  and  in  "Pud."  5  in  the  same  sense.  There  is  no 
apparent  reason  to  believe  that  the  concept  varied  in  his  writings. 
— Cf.  "De  Pallio  IV,  Oehler  I,  p.  934,  line  i,  p.  935,  line  5. 

36  "De  Pallio"  IV,  Oehler  I,  p.  942.— "Res.  Carn."  c.  16.  Oehler 
II,  p.  487. 


^'-ftf^/^-nm  AT  '^ 


122  THE  TERTULLIANIC  TERM  "MORTAL 

in  which  the  explanatory  clause  qime  in  ipsum  fv£rint  ad- 
missae  et  in  templum  eiics.  We  have  stated  that  it  is 
most  probably  to  be  taken  in  the  sense  we  have  offered 
in  the  preceding  pages.  It  will  be  seen  from  the  consid- 
eration brought  forth  above  that  the  clause  cannot  easily 
be  accepted  as  a  definition.  It  is  evidently  not  a  defini- 
tion in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term,  for  it  does  not  give 
us  any  of  the  fundamental  elements  of  the  concept.  It 
mentions  merely  the  ohjecta  circa  quae  of  transgressions 
that  are  mortal,  but  the  substance  of  the  concept  of  mor- 
tal sin  is  not  stated.  Since  the  object,  however,  may  be 
considered  a  determining  factor  of  the  gravity,  there  is 
some  justification  in  assuming  that  Tertullian  wished  to 
give  in  a  few  words  the  outlines  of  what  he  understood 
to  be  mortally  sinful.  This  is  not  improbable  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  the  Scriptural  phrase  does  not  occur  in 
the  immediate  context.  Mere  contrast  to  the  sins  men- 
tioned as  delicta  in  fratrem  would  not  require,  at  least 
in  the  context  as  it  exists,  the  presence  of  a  relative 
clause. 

The  investigation  to  which  we  have  subjected  the  pas- 
sages in  which  Tertullian  used  the  term  delicta  mortalia 
has  sufficiently  indicated  the  concept  he  sought  to  convey 
thereby,  namely  a  mere  substitute  for  the  concept  of  the 
Scriptural  term  delicta  ad  mortem.  Of  course,  the  con- 
cept receives  its  proper  modification,  a  substantial  one 
too,  as  to  its  extent,  from  the  Montanistic  attitude  of 
Tertullian.  Since  the  word  mortal  does  not  occur  in  the 
non-Montanistic  works  of  Tertullian  there  is  ground  for 
speculative  suspicion  as  to  its  sudden  appearance  in 
Pvd,  Hence  we  should  proceed  cautiously  in  judging  of 
its  import  in  the  time  of  Tertullian. 

Abstracting  from  the  arguments  we  have  offered  in 
the  various  considerations  of  the  contexts  accompanying 
the  use  of  the  term,  we  believe  there  is  considerable 
weight  in  the  circumstances  we  have  just  mentioned, 
namely  the  absence  of  the  term  in  Tertullian's  non-Mon- 
tanistic works,  for  the  opinion  we  have  advanced.  The 
term  mortal,  we  repeat,  was  not,  in  our  opinion,  an  ac- 


123 


cepted  term  of  theological  science  in  Tertullian*s  tiii.e. 
We  do  not  deny  however  that  it  was  Tertullian's  pur- 
pose to  coin  the  term  for  the  Montanistic  concept  which 
he  attached  to  the  Scriptural  phrase.  No  doubt,  he  real- 
ized the  position  of  leader,  which  he  enjoyed,  and  saw 
the  influence  his  writings  would  have  on  his  own  age  a*id 
even  on  following  generations.  It  need  not  surprise  is, 
therefore,  to  find  Tertullian  establishing  a  school  of  t  geo- 
logical thought  and  giving  form  and  life  to  theological 
concepts.  It  is  perhaps  in  this  very  fact  that  we  find  an 
explanation  of  Tertullian's  change  from  the  period  of 
Catholicism  through  the  Semi-Montanistic  half-decade 
to  the  determined  Montanistic  position  he  adopted  in 
later  years.  The  eminence  his  writings  gave  him  led 
him  to  believe  that  his  opinions  were  final  and  his  argu- 
ments unassailable  in  the  field  of  theology.^^ 

2,7  Such,  at  least,  is  the  psychological  solution  we  consider  as 
most  satisfactory  in  explaining  the  determination  that  we  find 
underlying  the  defense  of  Montanism  in  "Fuga  in  Pers.,"  "Jej.  adv. 
Psych.,"  "Pud."— "D'Ales,  La  Theol.  de  Tert.,"  p.  497,  writes :  Saint 
Jerome  assure  que  Tertullian  fut  en  butte  aux  mauvais  procedes 
des  clercs  remains,  qu'il  rend  plus  ou  moins  responsables  de  sa 
chute.  Nous  ne  pouvous  pas  verifier  cette  assertion;  mais  il  est 
clair  que  des  froissements  d'amour-propre  s'ajouterent  aux  ten- 
dances montanistes  pour  accelerer  la  crise,  et  nous  constatons  les 
ravages  produits  dans  Tame  de  I'irascible  apologiste.  On  le  savait 
coutumier  des  assertions  tranchantes ;  desormais  il  s'exaspere 
sous  la  contradiction,  jusqu'a  enoncer  les  plus  monstrueux  paralo- 
gismes.  Profondement  aigri,  bientot  il  retourne  contre  les  psy- 
chici  les  memes  calomnies  que  jadis  il  repoussait  avec  indignation. 
Si  r  aprete  du  caractere  fut  le  facteur  principal  de  cette  decadence 
nous  voyons  que  I'esprit  en  subit  le  contre-coup. 


124        CATHOLIC  CONCEPT  IN  TERTULLIAN'S  WORKS 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

CATHOLIC  CONCEPT  OF  MORTAL  AND  VENIAL 
SIN  IN  TERTULLIAN'S  WORKS. 

As  we  have  seen  in  the  preceding  pages,  the  expression 
mortal  sin  in  Tertullianic  terminology  does  not  convey 
the  concept  which  present  day  Catholic  theology  signifies 
thereby.  Tertullian  meant  merely  the  qualification  of 
^  certain  sins  which,  according  to  his  assumption.  Scrip- 
ture conveys  in  the  expression  delictum  ad  mortem.  He 
attached  to  its  use  the  meaning  of  irremissibility  of  cer- 
tain sins,  which  God  alone  could  pardon,  for  which  there 
was  during  this  life  no  remission,  but  penance  only. 
Catholic  theology  expresses  by  the  term  mortal  sin  the 
concept  of  an  offense  against  God  which  causes  the  spirit- 
ual death  of  the  soul.  The  term  mortal,  therefore,  applies 
both  in  Tertullianic  and  Catholic  theology  to  an  effect  of 
a  serious  sin  rather  than  to  the  nature  itself  of  the  trans- 
gression. 

If  we  state  that  the  Tertullianic  and  Catholic  concepts 
of  mortal  sin  differ,  we  do  not  wish  to  state  thereby  that 
the  concepts  are  absolutely  at  variance.  There  are  some 
aspects  in  which  they  are  co-extensive.  One  of  the  as- 
pects we  have  just  mentioned.  For  the  sake  of  clearness 
it  will  be  well  to  enter  into  the  consideration  of  some  of 
the  elements  of  both  the  Tertullianic  and  the  Catholic 
concept. 

The  terminology  Tertullianic  and  Catholic  applies  to 
an  effect  of  the  sin.  Tertullian  uses  mortal  in  the  literal 
t  sense,  wishing  to  express  by  the  term  the  irremissibility 
of  sin  before  physical  death.  Catholic  theology  uses 
mortal  in  a  figurative  sense  and  applies  the  term  to  the 
loss  of  sanctifying  grace,  the  life  of  the  soul.  Tertullian 
has  a  synonym  for  mortal,  but  that  again  refers  to  an  ef- 
fect of  the  sin.  Tertullian  calls  the  sins  that  receive  no 
pardon  exitiosa,  graviora,  but  these  terms  are  used  in 
passing  and  in  a  merely  explanatory  sense.  Catholic 
theology,  in  using  a  synonym  for  mortal,  applies  a  term 
that  can  also  refer  to  the  nature  of  the  transgression, 


CATHOLIC  CONCEPT  IN  TERTULLIAN'S  WORKS         125 

namely  peccatum  grave.  Tertullian  bases  the  use  of  his 
term  on  the  Scriptural  expression  delictum  ad  mortem 
and  makes  the  content  and  extent  of  the  concept  contin- 
gent upon  a  debatable  interpretation  of  the  Scriptural 
text  in  which  the  expression  occurs.  Catholic  theology 
has  not  based  the  use  of  it  on  the  Scriptural  passage  in 
question,  or  better  said,  it  does  not  refer  to  that  passage 
for  an  explanation  of  mortal  sin,  and,  consequently,  does 
not  make  the  concept  depend  upon  the  Scriptural  mean- 
ing of  I  John  V,  16.  Tertullian,  moreover,  describes  by  x 
the  term  mortal  an  effect  that  is  not  immediate,  whereas 
Catholic  theology  signifies  by  the  term  a  direct  and  imme- 
diate effect.  The  effect  which  Tertullian  stresses  is  the 
attitude  which  God  assumes  toward  the  sinner  in  the 
eventuality  of  the  sinner's  petition  for  forgiveness,  the 
effect  stressed  by  mortal  in  the  Catholic  sense  is  the  con- 
dition of  soul  into  which  the  sinner  falls  hie  et  nunc.  In- 
cidentally, Tertullian  emphasizes  by  his  use  of  the  term 
that  attitude  of  God  towards  sin  in  general  which  Catho- 
lic theology  stresses  in  terming  non-mortal  sin  venial. 

With  all  these  differences  there  are  points  of  similarity 
represented  by  the  Tertullianic  delictum  mortale  and 
Catholic  theology's  term  peccatum  mortale.  Underlying 
both  concepts  we  find  the  transgression  of  a  grave  com- 
mandment. As  to  this  there  can  be  no  doubt  for  anyone 
who  has  only  a  superficial  knowledge  of  Catholic  doctrine 
and  a  mere  reading  acquaintance  with  Tertullian's  work 
De  Pudicitia.  Tertullian  himself  applies  to  delictum 
mortale  the  description  conveyed  by  the  term  graviora. 
If  we  admit  that  in  chapter  19  of  Pud.  Tertullian  refers, 
by  the  use  of  graviora  and  exitiosa,  to  two  different 
classes  of  sin,  and  that  only  the  latter  are  to  be  considered 
delicta  mortdlia,  we  would  have  of  course  an  argument 
a  fortiori,  since  then  mortal  sins  contain  a  still  greater 
degree  of  gravity  than  those  termed  delicta  graviora. 
Implicitly  in  the  Tertullianic  concept  the  spiritual  death 
of  the  grievous  offender  is  contained,  as  is  evidenced  by 
the  effect  of  the  transgression  in  the  eyes  of  God.  If  we 
recall  briefly  the  contents  of  a  passage  in  Pud.  7  on  the 
expulsion  of  the  sinner  guilty  of  grievous  transgression 


126         CATHOLIC  CONCEPT  IN  TERTULLIAN'S  WORKS 

(moechia,  fornicatio)  from  the  Church,  we  shall  find 
there  just  this  element  of  spiritual  death,  upon  which 
Tertullian  lays  stress  in  the  passages  concerning  delicta 
mortalia.  In  Pud.  7  he  speaks  of  the  sinner  who  is  pro- 
nounced dead  immediately  upon  commission  of  the  crime 
of  impurity.  Moechum  vero  et  fornicatorem  quis  non 
mortuum  statim  admisso  vronuntiavitP  It  is  to  be  noted 
here  that  Tertullian  strives  to  make  the  effect  of  mortal 
sin  more  vivid  by  showing  its  immediate  result  on  the  re- 
lation between  the  sinner  and  the  Christian  community. 
We  are  not  prepared  to  state  in  what  the  ceremonial  for- 
mality of  expulsion  from  the  Christian  community  con- 
sisted, but  it  will  suffice  here  to  know  that  the  figurative 
use  of  the  term  mortuus  referred  to  the  symbolical  death, 
which  did  not  mean  the  mere  separation  from  communion 
with  other  Christians,  but  also,  as  is  clear  from  Tertul- 
lian's  explanation  of  remission  of  mortal  sins  for  the  next 
life  contingent  upon  a  penance  not  practiced  in  vain^  in 
this,  the  separation  from  communion  with  God.  In  the 
Catholic  concept  of  the  term  mortal  the  effect  of  spiritual 
death  is  fundamental. 

The  concept  of  the  Tertullianic  term  is  not  so  extensive 
as  is  that  of  Catholic  theology.  Tertullian  wishes  to  ap- 
ply mortal  merely  to  some  grievous  transgressions  of  di- 
vine law,  namely  those  for  which  there  is  no  forgiveness 
in  this  life.  The  Catholic  term  mortal  is  co-extensive 
with  all  grievous  transgression.  What  sins  are  precisely 
mortal  in  the  Tertullianic  sense  has  been  considered  above 
under  the  classifications  of  sins  in  deum,  in  fratrem,  and 
in  templum  dei. 

The  term  mortal  sin,  as  used  by  Tertullian  and  Catholic 
theologians,  has,  therefore,  some  points  of  difference  and 
some  of  similarity.  From  the  investigation  into  the 
terminology  we  have  found  that  the  concept  of  mortal  sin, 
as  taught  in  Catholic  doctrine,  cannot  be  gotten  in  its  en- 
tirety, nor  in  those  aspects,  according  to  which  it  is  con- 
trasted with  venial  sin,  from  Tertullian's  use  of  the  term 
mortal.     It  remains  to  be  seen  whether  the  Catholic  con- 

1  "Pud."  7,  Oehler  II,  805,  lines  19  sqq. 

2  Tud.  3. 


CATHOLIC  CONCEPT  IN  TERTULLIAN'S  WORKS         127 

cept  of  grievous  sin,  principally  in  its  contra-distinction 
of  venial,  finds  support  in  Tertullian's  works,  or  whether 
the  non-Catholic  contention  can  be  substantiated,  namely, 
that  tradition  knows  of  no  sin  that  is  not  mortal  ex  na- 
tura  sua. 

In  dealing  with  the  latter  contention  we  find  no  explicit 
statement  in  Tertullian's  work  that  would  serve  as  a  basis 
for  the  denial  of  a  distinction  between  mortal  and  venial 
sin.  (In  using  henceforth  the  term  mortal  we  wish  to 
express  thereby  the  Catholic  concept  of  grievous  sin,  un- 
less otherwise  expressly  stated).  If  Tertullian  expressly 
taught  that  all  sins  were  mortal,  we  should  obviously  find 
some  element  in  the  definition  of  sin  which  would  offer  a 
reason  for  the  denial  of  the  distinction.  We  recall  here 
the  passage  from  which  we  took  Tertullian's  definition 
of  sin:  id  peccato  deputandum  a  quo  Deus  arceat.^  In 
explanation  of  the  definition  Tertullian  adds:  quoniam, 
cum  Deum  grande  quid  bonum  constet  esse,  utique  bono 
nisi  malum  non  displiceret,  quod  inter  contraria  sibi  nulla 
amicitia  est.^ 

No  one  would  seriously  state  that  the  last  clause  of  the 
explanatory  sentence  just  quoted  is  precisely  an  argument 
that  denies  the  distinction  of  gravity.  For  it  is  the  mere 
contrast  between  good  and  evil  as  explanatory  of  the  con- 
trast between  God  and  sin  that  is  mentioned,  and  that  too, 
along  very  general  lines..  The  Catholic  doctrine  does 
not  deny  that  venial  sin  is  an  evil  or  that  it  displeases 
God.  It  is  obvious  that  sin,  not  the  sinner,  is  the  object 
of  God*s  hatred,  that  consequently  there  can  be  no  friend- 
ship between  God  and  sin.  Friendship  applies  to  persons 
primarily.  Tertullian  uses  friendship  here  in  a  sense 
equivalent  to  compatibility.  The  metaphorical  use  of 
the  term  in  an  abstract  axiomatic  statement  as  the  one 
quoted,  does  not  contribute  to  precision  either  of  thought 
or  of  expression.  In  the  present  instance  it  is  misleading, 
since  the  expression  nulla  amicitia  might  incline  the 
reader  to  believe  that  the  sinner  is  meant,  not  the  sin.  On 
second  thought,  however,  one  will  readily  under^.tancl 
that  Tertullian  is  dealing  only  with  an  abstract  concept, 

3  "Paen."  Ill,  2,  de  Labriolle,  p.  lo. 

4  Ibid. 


128         CATHOLIC  CONCEPT  IN  TERTULLIAN'S  WORKS 

not  with  the  concrete  application  of  the  enunciated  prin- 
ciple to  actual  transgressions,  light  or  grave.  Granted 
that  in  the  passage  quoted  Tertullian  considers  sin  in  the 
sinner  de  facto  and  that  the  principle:  inter  controHa 
sibi  nulla  amicitia  est  is  to  be  interpreted  as  excluding 
the  existence  of  non-mortal  sins,  there  would  still  remain 
to  be  demonstrated  that  Tertullian  is  here  dealing  with 
penance  in  general,  and  not  with  penance  as  applicable  to 
the  graver  faults  only.  If  Tertullian  speaks  here  of 
penance  as  applicable  to  the  graver  sins  the  conclusion  is 
not  improbable  that  in  speaking  of  sin  as  the  cause  or  oc- 
casion of  penance  his  explanatory  remarks  would  refer 
to  such  sin  as  would  be  proportionate  to  the  penance 
treated.  A  serious  objection  cannot  be  made  on  the  sup- 
position that  Tertullian  is  treating  penance  and  sin  in 
general,  and  that,  hence,  his  brief  digression  on  sin  is  ap- 
plicable to  all  sin.  For  that  supposition  would,  as  stated 
above,  still  have  to  be  verified.  We  need  not  enter,  how- 
ever, on  these  speculative  questions,  since  the  obvious 
reading  of  the  text  quoted  may  easily  be  interpreted  as 
referring  also  to  non-mortal  sin. 

Tertullian's  concept  of  grievous  sin,  as  present  day 
Catholic  theologians  understand  the  concept,  may  be  best 
obtained  from  a  study  of  his  comparative  lists  of  sins.  In 
these  various  lists  we  see  Tertullian  predicating  explicitly 
or  implicitly  a  degree  of  gravity  concerning  certain  sins, 
which  will  permit  us  a  fair  insight  into  his  view  on  the 
distinction  between  grievous  and  light  transgression. 
With  the  exception  of  the  passage  from  Pud,  7  we  have  in 
one  or  more  of  the  preceding  studies  become  acquainted 
with  the  contents  of  the  passages  which  we  will  quote  in 
full. 

We  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  all  the  passages  are 
taken  from  the  Montanistic  work,  De  Pudicitia,  which 
writing  of  Tertullian  gives  us  so  many  angles  of  view  into 
his  doctrines  and  those  of  his  opponents,  the  Psychics. 
Since  this  work  was  written  with  the  express  purpose  of 
defending  the  Montanistic  belief  concerning  the  irremissi- 
bility  of  certain  sins,  it  is  to  be  expected  that  the  degree 
of  gravity  in  the  classes  of  sins  called  irremissible  was 


CATHOLIC  CONCEPT  IN  TERTULLIAN'S  WORKS         129 

not  necessarily  changed.  The  rigorism,  of  course,  that 
was  inherent  in  Montanism,  would  lead  us  to  believe  that 
all  sins,  no  matter  of  what  gravity,  would  be  looked  upon 
in  a  more  severe  light  by  its  adherents  than  by  the  Psy- 
chics. The  raising  of  certain  sins  to  the  standard  of  ir- 
remissibility  would  naturally  raise  the  whole  scale  of  sins 
to  a  higher  level  of  gravity.  We  would  be  inclined  to  be- 
lieve this  all  the  more  since  we  find  Tertullian  condemn- 
ing second  nuptials  as  illicit  and  sinful.  Granting  for 
the  sake  of  illustration  that  entering  upon  a  second  mar- 
riage has  the  appearance  of  an  imperf  ection,we  can  easily 
see  how  the  trend  of  rigorism  in  Tertullian's  doctrine 
would  make  a  sin  of  the  imperfection.  It  is  quite  diffi- 
cult, however,  to  see  why  this  imperfection  was  quite  dis- 
proportionately branded  a  fault  more  grievous  than  the 
sins  lower  on  the  scale.  The  general  attitude  of  Mon- 
tanistic  rigorism  would  not  explain  this  difficulty,  al- 
though there  is  some  basis  for  an  explanation  in  Tertul- 
lian's  extreme  position  toward  things  sexual,  licit  or  il- 
licit. But  Montanism  in  all  its  rigorism  had  to  reckon 
with  frailty  and  with  laws,  the  importance  of  which  could 
not  be  stressed  too  much  for  fear  that  the  precepts  con- 
sidered most  binding  would  appear  unnaturally  severe. 
The  Catholic  concept  of  non-mortal  sin  is  so  logical  and 
fits  so  symmetrically  into  the  general  system  of  Christian 
morality  that  the  mind  of  Tertullian,  Montanistic  and 
ultra-ascetical  though  it  was,  saw  no  reason  to  expunge 
the  distinction  between  grievous  and  non-grievous  sin. 

The  texts  to  be  considered  are  as  follows :  Perit  igitur 
et  fidelis  elapsus  in  spectaculum  quadrigarii  fiiroris  et 
gladiatorii  cruoris  et  scenicae  foeditatis  et  xysticae  van- 
itatis,  aut  si  in  lusus,  in  convivia  saecularis  sollemnitatis, 
in  officium,  in  ministerium  alienae  idolatriae  aliquas  artes 
adhibuit  curiositatis,  si  in  verbum  ancipitis  negationis 
aut  blasphemiae  impegit.  Ob  tale  quid  extra  gregem  da- 
tus  est,  vel  et  ipse  forte  ira,  tumore,  aemulatione,  quod 
denique  saepe  fit,  dedignatione  castigationis  abrupit. 
Debet  requiri  atque  revocari.  Quod  potest  recuperari, 
non  perit  nisi  foris  perseveraverit.^     The  second  text  to 

5    "Pud."  7,  Oehler  I,  p.  805,  lines  9  sqq. 


130         CATHOLIC  CONCEPT  IN  TERTULLIAN'S  WORKS 

be  examined  is  as  follows :  Quaedam  delicta  cotidianae  in- 
cursionis,  quibus  omnes  simus  objecti.  Cui  enim  non  acci- 
det  aut  irasci  inique,  et  ultra  solis  accasum,  aut  et  manum 
immittere,  aut  facile  maledicere,  aut  temere  iurare,  aut 
fidem  pacti  destruere,  aut  verecundia  aut  necessitate  men- 
tiri?  In  negotiis,  in  officiis,  in  quaestu,  in  victu,  in  visu,  in 
auditu  quanta  tentamur?  ut  si  nulla  sit  venia  istorum,  ne- 
mini  solus  competat.  Horum  ergo  erit  venia  per  exora- 
torem  patris  Christum.^  The  third  text  reads  as  follows : 
Sunt  autem  et  contraria  istis,  ut  graviora  et  exitiosa,  quae 
veniam  non  capiant,  homicidium,  idololatria,  fraus,  nega- 
tion blasphemia,  utique  et  moechia  et  fornicatio,  et  si  qua 
alia  violatio  templi  dei. . .  Horum  ultra  exorator  non  erit 
Christus;  haec  non  admittet  omnino  qui  natus  ex  deo  fue- 
rit,  non  futurus  dei  filius,  si  admiseritJ 

It  is  the  purpose  of  the  following  pages  to  subject  these 
texts  to  a  detailed  investigation  both  as  to  textual  and 
contextual  content.  An  unbiased  study  of  their  mutually 
explanatory  relation  will,  we  are  firmly  convinced,  bring 
to  light  that  Tertullian  cannot  be  quoted  as  supporting 
the  denial  of  a  distinction  between  mortal  and  venial  sin. 
Nor  are  we  contented  with  this  merely  negative  result, 
but  we  do  believe  there  is  sufficient  basis  in  Tertullian's 
writings  for  the  positive  doctrinal  concept  of  the  distinc- 
tion. 

We  might  add  here  for  the  sake  of  clearness  in  the 
status  questionis  the  various  explanations  of  the  term 
mortal  and  venial  that  could  be  of  some  value  in  the  con- 
struction of  Tertullian's  concept  of  grievous  and  non- 
grievous  sins.  The  Catholic  doctrine  considers  mortal 
sin  ex  parte  substantiae  actus  a  word,  deed,  or  desire 
against  the  eternal  law,  ex  parte  defectus  an  aversion 
from  God,  the  ultimate  end  of  man,  by  voluntary  conver- 
sion to  a  changeable  good.^  Venial  sin  on  the  contrary 
does  not  destroy  the  principium  ordinis  by  aversion  from 
God,  the  ultimate  end,  and  hence  must  be  considered  an 


6  "Pud."  19,  Oehler  I,  p.  837,  lines  31,  32,  p.  838,  lines  i  sqq. 

7  Ibid.  op.  cit.,  loc.  cit.,  lines  6  sqq. 

8  Billot,  "Disquisitio  de  Natura  et  Ratione  Peccati  Personalis/ 
p.  35,  Rome,  1897. 


CATHOLIC  CONCEPT  IN  TERTULLIAN'S  WORKS         131 

act  that  is  not  contra  legem  aeternam,  but  merely  prae- 
ter.  Principium  ordinis  we  understand  to  mean  sancti- 
fying grace  either  in  se  or  in  its  manifestation,  such  as 
the  desire  to  serve  God  out  of  perfect  charity.^  Etymol- 
ogically,  venial  sin  means  merely  pardonable  sin.  A  sec- 
ond consideration  places  the  term  venial  sin  before  us  as 
meaning  any  sin  which  calls  for  less  punishment  because 
of  mitigating  circumstances. ^°  Finally,  venial  sin  of  its 
own  nature  contains  in  itself  the  cause  for  complete  for- 
giveness (quantum  est  de  se  habet  causam  veniae  totalis) 
since  it  deserves  temporary  chastisement  only  and  not 
eternal  punishment.  It  is  in  this  sense,  principally,  that 
venial  sin  is  contra-distinguished  to  mortal  sin. 

The  three  passages  adduced  above  show  at  least  three 
degrees  of  sin.  The  first  passage  describes  that  degree 
of  gravity  which  attaches  to  those  sins  that  place  the  sin- 
ner outside  the  pale  of  the  faithful,  but  not  forever.  A 
Christian,  who  is  guilty  of  one  or  more  sins  there  men- 
tioned, is  driven  from  the  flock,  (extra  gregem  datus  est) . 
That  the  excommunication  here  described  is  not  meta- 
phorical in  explanation  of  the  parable  concerning  the  lost 
sheep  is  quite  conclusively  demonstrable  from  Tertullian's 
further  elucidations.  The  separation  from  the  flock  is 
sometimes  effected  by  the  guilty  one  himself,  who  appar- 
ently does  not  wait  for  an  announcement  on  the  part  of 
the  authorities.  Ipse  forte  ira,  tumor e,  aemulatione, 
quod  denique  saepe  fit,  dedignatione  castigationis  ah- 
rupit.^^  Such  a  sinner  always  has  a  chance  of  being  re- 
called. 

He,  however,  who  has  been  guilty  of  adultery  or  forni- 
cation can  never  be  recalled.  He  perishes  in  the  strict 
sense.     What  the  strict  sense  of  perire  is  may  be  gather- 

9  Cf.  Billot  op.  cit.,  p.  io8:  principum  ordinis  quod  est  charitas 
super  omnia  Deo  adhaerens. 

10  Billot  op.  cit.,  pp.  105,  106. — Sic  peccata  mortalia,  quae  ex  in- 
firmitate  sive  passione  fiunt,  quandoque  dicuntur  venialia,  non 
quidem  simpliciter,  sed  secundum  quid,  et  comparative  ad  ea  quae 
ex  certa  malitia  procedunt.  Cf.  Waldmann,  "Zur  theol.  Begruen- 
dung  der  laesslichen  Suende,"  II,  (on  doctrine  of  St.  Thomas), 
"Tq."  pp.  153  sqq.,  Tuebingen  1917/18. 

11  "Pud."  7,  Oehler  I,  p.  805.  Cf.  "Adv.  Valentin,"  c.  4:  de  eccle- 
siae  authenticae  regula  abrupit. 


132         CATHOLIC  CONCEPT  IN  TERTULLIAN'S  WORKS 

ed  from  the  principle  enunciated  by  Tertullian  in  the  con- 
text: Quod  potest  recuperari,  non  perit  nisi  foris  perse^ 
veraverit.^^  Remaining  outside  the  flock  for  life  is 
equivalent  to  "death."  Perseverance  in  separation  from 
the  flock  would  have  the  same  effect  as  adultery  and  for- 
nication, according  to  the  Montanistic  view.  The  sepa- 
ration of  a  sinner  guilty  of  some  sin  mentioned  in  the 
category  quoted  above  (Pud.  1)  is  merely  temporary,  not 
perpetual,  as  in  the  case  of  adulterers  and  fornicators. 
The  same  principle  gives  us  also  the  broad  sense  of  perire 
which  Tertullian  explicitly  mentioned  in  the  preceding 
sentence:  Licet  enim  perisse  dicatur,  erit  et  de  perditio- 
nis  genere  retractare,  quia  et  ovis  non  moriendo,  sed  er- 
rando,  et  drachma  non  interiendo,  sed  latitando  perierunt. 
Ita  licet  did  perisse  quod  salvum  estJ^ 

The  point  Tertullian  wished  to  make  is  this,  that  at  all 
events  perire,  as  interpreted  by  the  Psychics  in  the  para- 
bles under  discussion,  is  not  equivalent  to  the  perire 
which  goes  with  sins  of  the  flesh.  Both  kinds  of  sinners, 
the  one  guilty  of  attending  the  gladiatorial  fights,  for  in- 
stance, and  the  other  guilty  of  adultery,  are  said  to  perish, 
both  by  Tertullian  and  the  Psychics,  but  the  Psychics  go 
too  far,  according  to  Tertullian,  in  placing  the  latter  class 
on  a  par  with  the  former  when  they  permit  the  latter  to 
be  recalled.  It  is  apparent  then  that  Tertullian  and  the 
Psychics  consider  both  kinds  of  sinners  guilty  of  serious 
offense. 

That  there  can  be  no  question  as  to  the  seriousness  of 
sins  mentioned  in  the  category  of  Pud.  7  is  quite  deduci- 
ble  from  the  fact  that  Tertullian  admits  that  the  guilt 
causes  the  sinners  to  perish,  and  forever,  too,  if  they  re- 
main in  the  state  of  separation.  Then,  too,  the  consider- 
ation, that  Tertullian  chose  as  examples  to  demonstrate 
his  interpretation  of  the  ewe  and  drachma  parables  such 
sins  that  both  he  and  the  Psychics  would  admit  as  causes 
of  perishing,  proves  the  contention  that  the  sins  in  the 
category  mentioned  were  of  a  grievous  nature.  This  be- 
comes still  more  evident  since  Tertullian  permits,  appar- 

12  "Pud."  7.  Ibid. 

13  "Pud."  7.  Ibid. 


CATHOLIC  CONCEPT  IN  TERTULLIAN'S  WORKS  iSS 

ently  with  a  purpose,  his  readers  to  conclude  that  the  Psy- 
chics considered  sins  of  the  flesh  equally  remissible  with 
sins  of  the  category  of  Pud,  7. 

But  can  it  be  said  definitely  that  Tertullian's  view  of 
the  sins  in  this  list  imply  substantially  the  doctrinal  con- 
cept of  Catholic  theology  concerning  grievousness  of  sin? 
The  prerequisites  knowledge  and  freewill  do  not,  as  may 
readily  be  granted  from  a  glance  at  the  nature  of  some  of 
the  sins  mentioned,  give  any  cause  for  doubt.^*  Whether 
the  gravis  materia  is  also  present  in  the  Tertullianic  con- 
cept must  be  gathered  from  his  discussion  of  the  sins  here 
mentioned.  His  work  De  Spectaculis  gives  us  a  sufficient 
insight  into  his  view  of  the  gravity  of  the  sins  he  links  up 
with  the  attendance  at  the  shows.     There  are  four  kinds 

14  We  need  not  enter  into  a  detailed  discussion  of  all  the  sins 
mentioned  in  the  category  of  "Pud."  7.  The  last  two,  however, 
might  give  rise  to  some  doubt  as  to  the  presence  of  the  prerequi- 
sites :  Si  in  verbum  ancipitis  negationis  aut  blasphemiae  impegit. 
Oehler  calls  attention  to  the  substitution  of  negatonis  for  nego- 
tiationis  in  our  present  text.  Latinius  is  to  be  commended  for  the 
substitution,  according  to  Fr.  Junius.  Solebant  infirmi  amphilogiis 
interdum  martyrium  declinare.  Fr.  lunius,  as  in  footnote  Oehler 
I,  page  805.  The  word  blasphemy  is  but  an  explicitation  of  nega- 
tio.  Idem  ibid.  The  notions  of  voluntarium  simpliciter  and  vol- 
untarium  secundum  quid  will  perhaps  solve  that  difficulty,  if  we 
accept  Oehler's  text. 

We  might  add  that  negatio  and  blasphemia  are  to  be  found  on 
the  list  of  delicta,  quae  veniam  non  capiunt  in  "Pud."  19.  In  "Pud'. 
7  however  they  are  qualified  by  a  term  that  seems  to  indicate  a 
mitigating  circumstance.  Oehler's  view  of  the  additional  aut 
blasphemiae,  as  synonymous  with  negatio,  finds  apparently  no 
support  after  a  comparison  of  the  two  categories.  In  "Pud."  19 
negatio  and  blasphemia  are  not  considered  as  synonyms,  as  is  evi- 
dent from  the  text  reading,  which  to  our  knowledge  has  no  varia- 
tions that  would  give  us  reason  to  believe  the  two  terms  to  be 
convertible.  The  mitigating  term  anceps  belongs,  in  our  opinion, 
both  to  negatio  and  blasphemia,  and  implies  an  element  of  involun- 
tariness,  such  as  theologians  are  wont  to  express  by  involuntarium 
secundum  quid.  The  question  would  be  much  easier  to  solve  if 
the  meaning  of  negatio  and  blasphemia  were  a  definitely  settled 
matter. 

From  this  consideration  it  is  quite  evident  that  Tertullian 
grasped  and  expressed  the  possibility  of  degrees  of  gravity  even 
in  those  sins  which  he  assigned  generically  to  the  class  of  irre- 
missibilia.  Sins  that  belong  to  this  class  could,  therefore,  under 
certain  circumstances  be  classified  as  less  intense  and  were  not 
ex  toto  genere  suo  irremissible.  To  what  sins  of  the  class  the 
possibility  of  mitigating  circumstances  can  be  extended,  is  not  of 
importance  here.  It  suffices  to  have  established  the  fact  that 
knowledge  and  voluntariness  are  presupposed  as  prerequisites  in 
the  category  under  consideration. 


134         CATHOLIC  CONCEPT  IN  TERTULLIAN'S  WORKS 

of  shows  he  mentions  in  the  passage  quoted;  namely, 
quadrigarii  furoris,  gladiatorii  cruoris,  scenicae  foedita- 
Us,  xysticae  vanitatis.  If  we  turn  to  the  chapters  in 
De  Spectacidis  that  deal  with  these  various  forms  of  pub- 
lic exhibitions  we  shall  find  these  forms  severely  con- 
demned as  unworthy  of  a  Christian,  because  of  themselves 
and  the  ideas  of  heathen  worship  with  which  they  are 
thoroughly  permeated. '^^  Even  the  trainer  of  gladiators 
is  excluded  from  the  Church^ ^  The  artes  curiositatis  are 
essentially  connected  with  superstition  and  idolatry.^^ 

An  objection  to  the  above  interpretation  of  Tertullian's 
view  on  the  gravity  of  sin  mentioned  in  the  category  of 
Pud.  7  could  be  brought  from  the  latter  part  of  the  same 
chapter,  in  which  certain  sins  are  admittedly  comparable 
in  gravity  to  the  size  and  weight  of  the  drachma.  Licet 
esse  aliqua  delicta  pro  ipsius  drachmae  modulo  ac  ponders 
mediocria,  quae  ibidem  delitescentia,  mox  ibidem  et  re- 
perta,  statim  ibidem  cum  gaudio  emendationis  transig- 
antur?^  Since  the  whole  matter  is  one  of  comparison, 
which  permits  of  several  tenable  explanations  according 
to  the  viewpoints  to  be  accommodated,  a  discussion  of  the 
expression  pro  modulo  ac  pondere  drachmae  will  not  lead 
to  any  definite  results.  One  thing  seems  certain  that  the 
expression  contains  no  definite  proof  of  venial  sin  nor  a 
basis  for  the  denial  thereof.  Tertullian  calls  the  sins 
compared  with  the  small  size  and  weight  of  the  drachma 
delicta  mediocria.  Hence  they  are  not  to  be  considered 
minima.  The  mediocria  here  comprise  either  such  sins 
as  Tertullian  has  mentioned  in  the  preceding  category  of 
the  same  chapter,  or,  and  this  seems  very  probable,  sins 
that  are,  according  to  the  supposition  and  trend  of  Ter- 
tullian's  argument  against  the  Psychics,  grievous,  but  not 
so  grievous  as  those  which  are  mentioned  in  the  category 
and  which  caused  a  temporary  penance  extra  gregem. 

We  say  it  seems  very  probable.     The  text  strongly  fa- 

15  Cf.  "Spec."  17,  18,  9. 

16  "Idol."  9,  Oehler  I,  p.  84.— Bingham,  "Antiquities,"  VI,  p.  402. 

17  "Idol."  9.  The  variation  in  the  text  given  by  Oehler  in  foot- 
note :  magicas  artes  in  place  of  aliquas  artes  corresponds  better 
to  the  idea  conveyed  by  curiositatis. 

18  "Pud."  7,  Oehler  I,  p.  806,  lines  10  sqq. 


CATHOLIC  CONCEPT  IN  TERTULLIAN'S  WORKS  135 

vers  this  division,  the  lowest,  among  the  grievous  sins. 
luxta  drachme  quoque  exemplum  etiam  intra  domum  del 
ecclesiam  licet  esse  cdiqua  delicta  pro  ipsius  drachmae 
modulo  ac  pondere  mediocria,  quae  ibidem  delitescentia, 
mox  ibidem  et  reperta,  statim  ibidem  cum  gaudio  emen- 
dationis  transigantur?^  Tertullian  apparently  does  not 
wish  to  argue  on  the  application  of  the  two  parables  to 
those  who  are  only  temporarily  lost  and  temporarily  sub- 
ject to  castigatio,  to  which  some  not  infrequently  refuse 
to  submit.  He  would  apply  the  parables  for  the  sake  of 
demonstrating  their  plausible  application  in  a  sense  other 
than  would  endanger  his  rigorism,  to  those  who  had  sin- 
ned grievously  but  not  to  the  extent  of  causing  them  to 
be  put  outside  the  fold  even  temporarily. 

That  there  is  question  here  of  grievous  sin  is  as  we 
have  said  above  the  obvious  conclusion  from  the  general 
trend  of  the  context  and  we  believe  from  the  very  text 
itself:  Statim  ibidem  cum  gaudio  emendationis  transig- 
antur.  The  Psychics  had  evidently  applied  the  parables 
in  question  also  to  those  guilty  of  moechia  and  fornicatio, 
Tertullian  makes  no  denial  of  the  implication  that  there 
is  question  of  a  serious  loss,  e.  g.,  in  the  going  astray  of 
one  sheep  from  the  fold,  but  he  does  not  admit  that  the 
loss  is  serious  enough  to  apply  the  parable  to  the  sinners 
guilty  of  moechia  and  fornicatio,^^ 

If  we  grant,  for  the  sake  of  clearing  away  further 
doubts  concerning  the  content  of  the  text  quoted  above 
on  the  delicta  pro  drachmae  modulo  et  pondere  mediocria, 
that  Tertullian  is  merely  adducing  the  words  of  the  Psy- 
chics and  not  giving  his  own  view,  we  can  still  adhere  to 
the  interpretation  given,  for  Tertullian  does  not  deny  that 
such  a  class  of  sin  exists.  It  is  true,  we  cannot  put  much 
stress  on  such  an  argument  ex  sUentio,  but  it  has  as  much 
value  as  the  supposition,  that  he  is  merely  quoting  the 
Psychics.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  supposed  or  real  quo- 
tation, is  of  such  a  nature  as  to  make  it  appear  common 


19  "Pud."  7,  Oehler  I,  p.  806,  lines  9  sqq. 

20  "Pud."  7,  Oehler  I,  p.  806,  lines  13  sqq.  Moechiae  vero  et 
fornicationis,  non  drachma,  sed  talentum,  quibus  exquirendis  non 
lucernae  spicule  lumine,  sed  totius  solis  lancea  opus  est. 


136         CATHOLIC  CONCEPT  IN  TERTULLIAN'S  WORKS 

ground  for  Tertullian  and  the  Psychics.  It  would  suffice, 
for  the  present,  to  prove  that  the  concept  existed  at  his 
time,  namely  that  there  were  sins  which  were  grievous, 
but  not  to  the  extent  of  exclusion  from  the  Church. 

Tertullian  was  quite  willing  to  admit  that  there  are 
sins  of  the  gravity,  just  described,  comparable  to  the  size 
and  weight  of  a  drachma,  but  he  was  opposed  to  classify- 
ing moechia  et  fornicatio  among  them,  as,  he  claimed,  the 
Psychics  did.  There  seems  reason  to  believe,  therefore, 
that  Tertullian  had  a  well  developed  concept  of  the  vari- 
ous degrees  of  gravity  in  grievous  sins.  The  fact  that 
he  treats  the  various  sins  in  Pvd.  principally 
from  the  viewpoint  of  remissibility  evidently  does  not 
exclude  the  fact  that  he  also  treats  the  sins,  even  though 
incidentally,  from  the  viewpoint  of  objective,  inherent 
gravity.  The  close  relation  between  remissibility,  or  re- 
spectively, irremissibility,  and  the  inherent  gravity  of 
serious  sins  permits  of  reasonable  exactness  in  deductions 
concerning  the  nature  of  the  gravity  itself,  especially  in 
view  of  the  indications  given  by  the  texts  and  the  con- 
texts. 

The  texts  that  we  have  thus  far  considered  in  Pud.  7 
would  give  us  three  classes  of  grievous  sin.  The  class  of 
most  grievous  delicta  comprises  moechia  et  fornicatio, 
also  all  the  irrendssibilia  by  implication.  Then,  those 
sins  which  exclude  for  a  time  from  the  Church  may  be 
considered  next  in  gravity  of  offense.-^       A  still  lower 

21  As  stated  above,  the  anceps  negatio  and  the  anceps  blasphe- 
mia  give  us  reason  to  believe  that  Tertullian  placed  this  class  next 
to  the  irremissibilia,for  among  them  he  has  enumerated  sins  which, 
considered  in  their  full  genus,  belong  to  the  delicta  irremissibilia, 
but  because  of  a  mitigating  circumstance  drop  into  the  next 
lower  class  of  serious  sins.  Not  only  de  we  find  proof  for  this  in 
the  mention  of  anceps  negatio  and  blesphemia,  but  even  sins  of 
the  flesh,  typified  in  their  fullness  by  moechia  et  fornicatio  or 
monstra,  are  represented  in  the  category  by  the  expression:  spec- 
tacula  scenicae  foeditatis. 


CATHOLIC  CONCEPT  IN  TERTULLIAN'S  WORKS  137 

class  of  serious  sins  is  to  be  found  represented,  very  prob- 
ably, by  the  delicta  mediocria  discussed  above." 

On  this  basis  of  a  distinction  between  the  various  class- 
es of  grievous  sin  we  are  able  to  build  up  a  further  consid- 
eration. The  second  passage  quoted  above  as  entering 
into  the  study  of  the  difference  between  grievous  and  non- 
grievous  sin  is  taken  from  Tertullian's  discourse  on  texts 
from  St.  John,  which  he  tries  to  harmonize  for  the  pur- 
pose of  avoiding  a  conflict  between  his  rigorism  and 
Scriptural  teaching.  The  passage  occurs  in  the  much 
discussed  Pud.  19.  There  seems  to  be  much  cause,  in- 
deed, for  discussion.  For  a  careful  reading  of  the  chap- 
ter will  disclose  the  fact  that  Tertullian  is  laboring  under 
serious  difficulties  in  his  heavy  efforts  to  answer  the  ob- 
jections, real  or  supposed,  of  the  Psychics."^ 

The  difficulty  from  St.  John  which  leads  on  to  the  pas- 
sage we  are  to  investigate  is  the  one  arising  from  the 

22  What  sins  precisely  belong  to  this  last  class  of  serious  sins 
is  not  mentioned  by  Tertullian.  That  in  itself  would  be  reason 
enough  to  doubt  the  existence  of  such  a  class  of  sins  in  Tertul- 
lian's  mind.  But  then  there  are  no  urgent  grounds  to  assume  that 
every  class  of  sins  had  to  have  its  corresponding  enumeration 
somewhere  in  Tertullian's  works.  No  one  will  assert  that  the 
enumerations  are  complete.  They  are  merely  exemplary.  The 
modifying  adjective  aliqua  shows  to  some  extent  that  Tertullian 
did  not  consider  their  number  negligible.  Their  number  was  suffi- 
cient to  form  a  basis  for  two  of  the  parables,  sufficient  in  fact,  to. 
meet  the  concept  of  remissibility,  which  the  Psychics  wished  to 
associate  with  the  interpretation  of  the  parables. 

23  We  say  real  or  supposed,  because  it  is  by  no  means  a  settled 
matter  what  part  of  the  text  can  be  quoted  as  originating  from 
the  pen  of  some  Psychic  apologist,  or,  perhaps,  even  from  the 
edict  of  Callixtus.  Still  more,  it  is  by  no  means  established 
whether  any  part  beyond  a  few  words  in  "Pud."  I  were  to  be 
found  in  the  original  edict,  in  a  Psychic  defense  thereof,  or  in 
some  Psychic  discourse  on  the  penitential  discipline.  It  may 
easily  be  supposed  that  Tertullian  himself  put  up  the  objections 
to  clarify  his  standpoint.  The  objections,  especially  those  taken 
from  St.  John,  spontaneously  suggested  themselves  to  the  minds  of 
at  least  the  better  educated  Christians,  who  with  their  thorough 
knowledge  of  Scripture  would  quite  probably  bring  forth  just  such 
difficulties  as  are  presented  by  Tertullian. — Cf.  Morinus,  "Com- 
mentarius  Historicus  de  Disciplina  in  Administratione  Sacramenti 
Paenitentiae  IX,  cc.  19,  20,  pp.  459  sqq.,  Venice,  1702.— Esser,  "Die 
Busschriften  Tertullians,  De  paenitentia  und  De  Pudicitia  und  das 
Indulgenzedikt  des  Papstes  Kallistus,"  Programme  of  the  Univer- 
sity of  Bonn,  1905— Funk,  "Das  Indulgenzedikt  des  Papstes  Kallis- 
tus.", Tq.,  1906,  pp.  541  sqq— Rolffs,  "Das  Indulgenzedikt  des 
roemischen  Bischofs  Kallist/'  1893. 


138       CATHOLIC  CONCEPT  IN  TERTULLIAN'S  WORKS 

texts :  I  John  I,  8 :  "If  we  say  that  we  have  no  sin,  we  de- 
ceive ourselves  and  the  truth  is  not  in  us" ;  I  John  III,  9, 
10:  "Whosoever  is  born  of  God  committeth  not  sin;  for 
his  seed  abideth  in  him,  and  he  cannot  sin,  because  he  is 
bom  of  God.  In  this  the  children  of  God  are  manifest, 
and  the  children  of  the  devil.  Whosoever  is  not  just,  is 
not  of  God,  nor  he  that  loveth  not  his  brother."  Tertul- 
lian  sums  up  the  objection  by  stating :  luxta  est  igitur  ut 
excidisse  sibi  dicamus  loannem  in  primore  quidem  epis- 
tola  negantem  nos  sine  delicto  esse,  nunc  vero  praescri- 
bentem  non  delinquere  omnio,  et  illic  quidem  aliquid  de 
venia  blandientem,  hie  vero  distncte  negantem  filios  dei 
quicunque  deliquerint."^^  The  objection  here  formulated 
is  a  quite  natural  exegetical  question,  and  of  itself  looked 
both  to  Tertullian  and  the  Psychics  for  a  solution.  It  is 
not  at  all  clear  why  Tertullian  should  have  entered  so 
thoroughly  into  the  various  exegetical  difficulties,  since 
the  solutions  he  offers  are,  as  their  very  explanation  indi- 
cates, unsatisfactory,  and  do  not  appreciably  strengthen 
the  defense  of  his  doctrine.  While  the  lengthy  excursus 
on  the  various  Scriptural  objections  and,  principally, 
those  adduced  above  throws  little  light  on  the  system  of 
irremissible  sins,  it  does  incidentally  give  us  a  fair  in- 
sight into  the  concept  of  several  classes  of  sins,  which  fact 
favors  the  contention  that  the  question  of  the  nature  and 
gravity  of  sin  is  closely  allied  with  that  of  the  remissi- 
bility  or  irremissibility  of  sin,  and  that,  consequently, 
reasonably  exact  deductions  concerning  the  nature  and 
gravity  of  sin  may  be  made  from  Tertullian's  discussion 
of  the  latter  question. 

The  solution  which  Tertullian  offers  to  the  objection  he 


24  The  variations  in  the  readings  here  do  not  affect  the  sub- 
stance ot  the  text  just  quoted:  "Pud."  19,  Oehler  I,  p.  837,  line^ 
25  sqq.  "Anf."  Vol.  IV,  p.  96,  places  this  passage  in  quotation 
marks.  The  very  reading  of  it  will  show  that  it  is  just  as  justifiable 
to  consider  the  objection  as  placed  by  Tertullian  himself.  luxta 
est  igitur  ut  dicamus  is  apparently  in  itself  a  probability  against 
the  supposition  that  Tertullian  is  quoting  from  some  Psychic  doc- 
ument. Then  too,  the  very  objections  preceding  the  supposed 
quotation  are  of  such  a  nature  as  to  incline  the  reader  to  believe 
that  Tertullian  is  merely  placing  a  series  of  oratorical  questions 
which,  embracing  obvrous  Scriptural  objections,  demand  a  reply. 


CATHOLIC  CONCEPT  IN  TEETULLIAN'S  WORKS  139 

or  the  Psychics  formulated  is  based  on  a  very  important 
distinction  of  sins  according  to  their  gravity,  namely,  the 
delicta  cotidianae  incursionis,  quibus  omnes  simus  obi- 
ecti  and  the  delicta  contraria  istis,  ut  graviora  et  exiti- 
osa.  For  the  moment  we  shall  pass  over  the  various  con- 
siderations Tertullian  gives  these  classes  of  sin  to  keep 
in  view  the  general  trend  of  his  solution  of  the  difficulty 
proposed. 

Having  drawn  a  distinction  between  various  sins,  Ter- 
tullian states  with  satisfaction  that  the  distinction  given 
solves  well  the  difficulty  arising  from  St.  John :  Ita  loan- 
nis  ratio  constabit  diversitatis,  distinctionem  delictorum 
disponentis,  cum  delinquere  filios  dei  nunc  adnuit,  nunc 
abnuit.-^  The  concluding  thoughts  of  the  chapter  deal 
with  the  application  of  the  answer  given  to  delicta  non 
ad  mortem  and  delicta  ad  mortem.  Delicta  non  ad  mor- 
tem would  apparently  be  delicta  cotidianae  incursionis, 
while  moechia  and  fornicatio  alone  are  mentioned  as  con- 
stituting delicta  ad  mortem.  Above  he  had  mentioned 
several  others  among  the  exitiosa.  They  are  left  out  of 
consideration  in  the  conclusion.  The  reason  for  this  pro- 
cedure in  Tertullian's  logic  is  a  matter  of  conjecture.  Did 
he  wish  to  state  that  at  all  events  moechia  et  fornicatio 
must  be  considered  delicta  ad  mortem?  If  so,  then  the 
wording  of  his  final  sentences  is  not  up  to  the  standard 
of  precision  we  have  a  right  to  expect  from  so  thorough 
a  writer. 

As  the  text  lies  before  us,  a  merely  cursory  reading  of 
the  lines  in  question  will  incline  us  to  believe  that  all  the 
sins  he  mentioned  as  exitiosa  above  (homicidium,  idolo- 
latria,  etc)  should  have  received  some  reference  in  the 
final  remarks  of  the  chapter.-^  Even  though  his  main 
purpose  in  Pud,  is  to  demonstrate  the  irremissibility  of 
carnal  sins,  and  consequently  only  they  need  be  considered 
in  his  conclusion,  still  the  quite  distinctly  felt  omission  of 
any  reference  to  the  other  delicta  exitiosa  should  have 

25  "Pud."  19,  Oehler  I,  p.  838,  lines  11  sqq. 

26  We  mention  exitiosa  without  the  preceding  term  graviora, 
since  we  are  not  able  to  come  to  a  conclusion  as  10  whether  Ter- 
tullian meant  the  two  adjectives  as  descriptive  of  the  same  class, 
or  whether  he  had  two  classes  of  sins  in  mind. 


140         CATHOLIC  CONCEPT  IN  TERTULLIAN'S  WORKS 

been  avoided.  In  fact  the  impression  grows  that  Ter- 
tullian  himself  is  not  sure  of  his  ground  and  is  groping 
about  for  an  argument  in  his  favor,  that  in  the  vagueness 
of  the  discussion  he  abruptly  dispenses  with  the  logical 
sequence  of  the  various  ideas  developed  in  his  argumen- 
tation and  places  before  the  Psychics  a  dilemma  to  rid 
himself  of  the  burden  of  proving  the  original  contention. 
Indeed  the  last  sentence  of  the  chapter  in  question  begins 
with  a  rather  sweeping  statement :  Ita  nihil  iam  super  est, 
and  leaves  to  the  reader  the  solution  of  the  doubts  that 
have  arisen  in  his  mind  about  the  sequence  of  the  argu- 
ment and  the  existence  of  other  delicta  exitiosa  which  are 
completely  ignored.  The  accusation  of  insincerity,  which 
D'Ales  insinuates  in  sufficiently  strong  terms,"  is  cer- 
tainly not  weakened  by  a  perusal  of  the  chapter  here  con- 
sidered. 

The  salttis,  however,  which  Tertullian  makes  in  his  ar- 
gumentation does  not  obscure  into  untraceable  vagueness 
the  large  outlines  of  the  concepts  we  are  investigating. 
There  remains  the  expressly  stated  distinction  between 
classes  of  sins  that  are  separated  by  an  infinite  distance. 
There  remain,  too,  sufficiently  clear  indications  of  the 
concepts  which  Tertullian  attached  to  the  discussion  of 
the  various  classes  of  sin.  Between  the  lines  of  the  argu- 
ment, which  he,  with  legal  technicalism  and  Scriptural 
insight,  tries  to  shape  in  his  favor,  we  find  enough  ground 
for  the  assertion  we  have  made  above  concerning  the 
basis  for  a  denial  or  aflSrmation  of  a  distinction  between 
mortal  and  venial  sin. 

The  passage  we  have  quoted,  which  deals  with  delicta 
cotidianae  incursionis,  is  not  self  explanatory.  The  mere 
wording  of  the  passage  under  the  obvious  interpretation 
a  Catholic  reader  would  feel  inclined  to  put  on  the  text 
would,  of  course,  have  the  appearance  of  prejudicial  opin- 
ion. It  is  to  the  context,  then,  that  we  must  look  for  a 
complementary  exegesis  of  the  text.  One  undeniable 
fact  stands  out  quite  eminent  in  the  explanation  which 
Tertullian  adds  to  the  distinction  of  sins  in  delicta  coti- 

27    D'Ales,  "L'fedit.  de  Calliste,  p.    198. 


CATHOLIC  CONCEPT  IN  TERTULLIAN'S  WORKS         141 

diana  and  delicta  exitiosa,  and  that  fact  is  that  the  grace 
of  God,  the  sonship  of  God,  is  lost  only  by  committing  the 
latter.  We  could  not  expect  a  clearer  statement  at  the 
time  of  Tertullian  as  to  the  effect  of  sin,  which  is,  beyond 
all  doubt,  mortal  both  according  to  Tertullian's  terminol- 
ogy and  concept  of  grievous  sin. 

The  grievous  sins  we  have  investigated  above  in  our 
discussion  of  the  category  in  Pud.  7,  are  not  considered 
here  in  Pttd,  19.  We  would  expect  to  see  some  reference 
to  the  application  of  the  effect  just  mentioned,  namely  the 
loss  of  the  sonship  of  God,  to  that  class  of  sin  for  which 
the  offender  is  at  least  temporarily  separated  from  the 
sons  of  God  as  united  in  Christian  communion.  The  fact 
that  there  is  no  reference  to  them  does  not  of  itself  argue 
that  only  those  guilty  of  delicta  exitiosa  lose  the  sonship 
of  God.  We  have  seen  that  Tertullian  himself  speaks  of 
perishing  in  a  broader  sense  when  mentioning  those 
guilty  of  a  sin  given  in  the  category  of  Pud.  7.  He  does 
not  deny  that  there  is  some  element  in  common  between 
those  who  are  excluded  temporarily  and  those  excluded 
forever  from  the  Church.  The  Psychics  had  applied, 
supposedly  at  least,  the  parable  of  the  lost  ewe  and  the 
lost  drachma  even  to  those  guilty  of  moechia  and  fornica- 
tio. 

Tertullian  was  apparently  not  concerned  about  the  ef- 
fect hie  et  nunc  on  the  soul  of  the  offender.  His  conten- 
tion was  that  the  effect  should  not  be  removed  by  the 
Church.  The  lost  sonship  should  not  be  restored  to  /those 
guilty  of  moechia  and  fomicatio.  He  admits  that  the 
Church  could  do  so,  but  according  to  him  it  is  not  her 
will.^*  It  was  therefore  not  sin  as  such  which  caused 
Tertullian  to  insist  so  strongly  on  his  view,  for,  when 
pressed  to  give  a  satisfactory  solution  to  the  difficulty 
arising  from  the  all-inclusive  power  given  to  Peter  (quae- 
cunque),  he  admitted  that  the  Paraclete  (ecclesia  spiritus 
per  spiritalem  hominem,  non  ecclesia  numerus  episcopo- 

2S  "Pud."  21,  Oehler  I,  pp.  842,  843.  Sed  habet,  mquis,  potesta- 
tem  ecclesia  delicta  donandi.  Hoc  ego  magis  et  agnosco  et  dis- 
pone, qui  ipsum  paracletum  in  prophetis  novis  habeo  dicentem: 
Potest  ecclesia  donare  delictum,  sed  non  faciam,  ne  et  alia  delin- 
qiuant. 


142        CATHOLIC  CONCEPT  IN  TERTULLIAN'S  WORKS 

rum,  Pzid.  21)  could  grant  indulgence  to  all  sin.  The 
fear  that  forgiving  such  sins  as  moechia  et  fornicatio 
would  lead  to  greater  evils  is,  according  to  Tertullian's 
own  words,  the  one  reason  why  adulterers  and  fornicators 
are  excluded  forever  from  the  Church. 

The  loss  of  the  sonship  of  God,  therefore,  may  be  defi- 
nitely considered  as  common  to  all  who  have  offended  to 
the  extent  of  being  excluded  from  the  Church  either  tem- 
porarily or  perpetually,  and,  in  fact,  as  we  have  seen 
above,  even  those,  who  have  failed  seriously,  but  have  not 
been  excluded  from  the  Church,  are,  as  to  the  perditio, 
on  a  possible  par  with  those  who  have  been  excluded  tem- 
porarily. Tertullian  in  Pud.  7  gives  the  Psychics  room 
to  interpret  the  parable  of  the  lost  ewe  and  the  lost 
drachma  as  appertaining  to  delicta  mediocria.  From 
these  observations  it  will  appear  that  Tertullian  was  far 
from  denying  the  loss  of  the  sonship  of  God  in  the  case 
of  those  who  committed  delicta  less  grievous  than  the  de- 
licta exitiosa.  Hence,  irremissibility  and  loss  of  God's 
sonship  were  by  no  means  co-extensively  synonymous, 
and  hence,  sins  of  the  remissible  class  (Pud.  7)  also  caus- 
ed the  loss  of  Gods  sonship.  It  is  true  that  in  the  brief 
space  of  Pud.  19,  in  which  explicit  mention  is  made  of 
this  one  effect  of  grievous  sin,  the  impression  is  possibly 
gained  that  Tertullian  meant  the  loss  of  the  sonship  of 
God  as  applicable  only  to  the  delicta  irremissibilia.  But 
upon  thorough  inspection  not  even  the  immediate  context 
will  bear  out  this  impression,  and  still  less  will  other  pas- 
sages, as  seen  above,  be  considered  as  favoring  such  a 
view.  Tertullian  himself  is  quite  aware  of  the  inade- 
quacy of  his  interpretation,  in  which  he  seeks  to  reconcile 
the  concepts  from  St.  John:  we  all  sin,  we  do  not  sin  at 
all,  those  born  of  God  do  not  sin.  His  admission  has  un- 
consciously slipped  into  the  text  :^^  haec  non  admittet  om- 
nino  qui  natus  ex  deo  fuerit,  non  futurus  dei  filius,  si  ad- 
miserit.^^ . . 

It  is  evidently  a  matter  worthy  of  further  considera- 
tion that  Tertullian,  in  giving  examples  to  demonstrate 

29  Scl.  delicta  exitiosa. 

30  "Pud."  19,  Oehler  I,  p.  838,  lines  10,  11. 


CATHOLIC  CONCEPT  IN  TERTULLIAN'S  WORKS  '        143 

the  solution  of  the  Scriptural  difficulty  and  at  the  same 
time  the  applicability  of  his  doctrine,  chose  for  the  one 
part  of  the  contrast  sins,  which  he  in  no  other  part  of  his 
works  mentions  explicitly.  These  sins  are  the  delicta 
cotidiana,  sins  which  are  obviously  of  a  lighter  degree 
than  any  he  has  named  in  other  passages.  Had  he  wished 
to  bring  out  a  list  of  sins  in  contrast  to  the  delicta  irre- 
missihilia  in  order  to  demonstrate  the  existence  of  sins 
that  could  be  pardoned  by  some  church  authority,  he 
needed  only  repeat  the  category  with  which  he  had  al- 
ready acquainted  his  readers.  The  mention,  merely  in 
general,  of  sins  remissible  through  the  medium  of  the 
bishop^'  would  well  have  served  that  purpose  since  they 
are  still  fresh  in  the  mind  of  the  reader  from  the  end  of 
the  preceding  chapter. 

What  reason  could  Tertullian  have  for  choosing  just 
the  lighter  forms  of  sin  and  hence  omitting  reference,  ap- 
parently with  a  purpose,  to  sins  of  a  grievous,  though  not 
of  the  gravest,  nature?  If  it  was  merely  to  interpret 
the  words  of  St.  John  that  we  do  sin  and  that  we  do  not 
sin,  then  Tertullian  has  uselessly,  not  to  say  illogically. 
adduced  the  concept  of  forgiveness  through  the  Suppliant 
of  the  Father  and  the  concept  of  denial  of  sin.  Forgive- 
ness of  sin,  or  non-forgiveness  thereof ,  though  these  con- 
cepts constitute  the  underlying  theme  of  the  chapter,  in 
fact  of  the  whole  work  De  Pudicitia,  are  not  the  control- 
ling thought  in  this  specific  passage.  They  are,  for  the 
time,  in  the  background,  and  the  sonship  of  God  and  its 
loss,  as  the  principal  elements  in  solving  the  Scriptural 
difficulty,  receive  the  most  attention. 

It  is  in  conformity  with  these  ideas,  then,  that  Tertul- 
lian brings  the  list  of  delicta  cotidiana.  The  mention  of 
grievous  sins  without  any  reference  whatever  to  the  irre- 
missible  sins  would  well  have  served  the  purpose  of  Ter- 
tullian*s  explanation.  For  the  demonstration,  that  the 
distinction  between  non-grievous  and  grievous  sins  would 
suffice  to  clear  up  the  Scriptural  difficulty,  which  had  been 
brought  more  in  consequence  of  putting  Tertullian*s  doc- 

31     "Pud."  18.  ca.  fin.,  Oehler  I,  p.  834. 


144         CATHOLIC  CONCEPT  IN  TERTULLIAN'S  WORKS 

trine  to  the  test  than  because  of  any  inherent  exegetical 
obscurity,  could  easily  have  been  turned  to  Tertullian's 
advantage.  If  Tertullian*s  doctrine  aggravated  the 
Scriptural  difficulty  in  the  eyes  of  the  Psychics,  then  most 
assuredly  the  mere  drawing  of  a  distinction  between  the 
opposite  effects,  namely  the  continued  possession  of  the 
sonship  of  God  and  the  loss  thereof,  would  have  placed 
before  them  the  very  plausible  viewpoint,  according  to 
which  remissibility  and  irremissibility  of  sin  did  not  in 
any  way  affect  the  act  of  sinning,  and  that  hence  the  dif- 
ficulty of  the  Psychics  in  as  far  as  it  based  itself  upon 
Tertullian's  doctrine  was  beyond  the  question.  But,  in- 
stead of  following  this  line  of  reasoning,  Tertullian  sought 
to  develop  the  solution  of  the  difficulty  into  an  argument 
in  his  favor.  The  success  or  the  failure  of  this  attempt 
may  be  measured  by  the  conviction  one  has  on  finishing 
a  careful  reading  of  the  intricate  nineteenth  chapter. 

Not  much  surprise  do  we  experience  in  finding  Tertul- 
lian summarizing  his  solution  of  the  Scriptural  difficulty : 
Ita  loannis  ratio  constabit  diversitatis,  distinctionem  de- 
lictorum  disponentis,  cum  delinquere  filios  dei  nunc  ad- 
nuit  nunc  abnuit,^^  But  his  inconsistency  becomes  quite 
apparent,  still  more  so,  perhaps,  his  intention  of  forcing 
Scripture  into  his  service,  when  he  states:  Prospiciebat 
enim  clausulam  litterarum  suarum,  et  illi  praestruebat 
hos  sensus  dicturus  in  fine  manifestius.  Si  quis  scit  fro- 
trem  suum  delinquere  delictum  non  ad  moHem,  postulah- 
it,  et  dabit  ei  vitam  dominu^  qui  non  ad  mortem  delinquit. 
Est  enim  delictum  ad  mortem;  non  de  eo  dico,  ut  quis  pos- 
tulet.^^  No  effort  is  made  to  explain  the  spontaneous  ob- 
jection that  Tertullian,  in  his  solution  to  the  Scriptural 
difficulty,  had  stressed  the  delicta  exitiosa  as  irremissi- 
bilia,  while  here  the  Scriptural  text  concerning  the  delio- 
turn  ad  mortem  can  on  its  face  value  be  interpreted  as 
meaning  one  crime  only,  not  the  seven  or  eight  he  had 
mentioned  on  the  list  of  delicta  exitiosa.  The  singling 
out  of  moechia  et  fornicatio  rather  increases  the  impres- 
sion of  inconsistency,  though  it  is  more  in  harmony  with 

32  "Pud."  19,  Oehler  I,  p.  838. 

33  Ibid. 


CATHOLIC  CONCEPT  IN  TERTULLIAN'S  WORKS         145 

the  sense  of  the  Scriptural  reference  to  one  delictum  ad 
mortem.  It  is  true,  in  the  final  sentence  of  the  chapter 
he  reverts  to  the  use  of  the  plural,  delicta  mortalia,  irre- 
missibilia.  But  that  in  itself  does  not  dispel  the  impress 
sion  of  inconsistency,  or  inaccuracy,  which  one  gains 
from  the  shifting  to  and  fro  from  the  singular  to  the  plu- 
ral. It  is  left  to  the  reader  to  explain  to  himself,  as  best 
he  can,  the  varying  concepts  of  the  author. 

Tertullian  has  succeeded  in  giving  a  distinction  which 
in  itself  would  have  sufficiently  met  the  difficulty  from  St. 
John,  but  we  cannot  help  seeing,  in  the  additional  effort 
to  establish  another  argument  in  favor  of  his  doctrine,  an 
inconsistency,  an  inaccuracy,  we  might  term  it,  which  is 
not  free  from  the  taint  of  the  forensic  art  of  stretching 
an  interpretation  to  carry  a  point.  The  text,  we  believe, 
will  bear  us  out  on  this  point,  likewise,  a  fair  and  unpre- 
judiced ,study  thereof  in  its  relation  to  the  context  and 
especially  to  the  concluding  lines  of  the  chapter. 

The  interpretation  which  shows  that  Tertullian  is  not 
merely  defending  his  viewpoint  but  is  also  adducing  the 
concepts  of  grievous  sin  and  of  non-grievous  sin  is  quite 
in  harmony  with  the  scope  of  his  purpose  in  that  particu- 
lar passage.  His  primary  aim  is  the  solution  of  the 
Scriptural  objection  in  question.  His  solution  could  sub- 
stantially be  accepted  by  the  Psychics,  too,  for  the  distinc- 
tion Tertullian  makes  between  grievous  and  non-grievous 
sin  is  based  on  a  doctrine  that  both  accept.  But  Tertul- 
lian adds,  in  the  solution,  to  the  concept  of  delicta  cotidi- 
ana  the  idea  of  remissibility  to  that  of  delicta  exitiosa 
the  idea  of  irremissibility.  If  it  is  a  mere  question  of  ad- 
ducing remissible  sins,  why  were  not  those  referred  to 
that  were  discussed  as  remissible  in  Pud.  7?  Peccata 
cotidiana  are  mentioned  for  the  express  purpose  of  show- 
ing that  we  do  not  sin  to  the  extent  of  losing  God's  son- 
ship.  The  element  of  remissibility  is  felt  to  be  forcedly 
imposed  upon  a  concept  of  sin  that  would,  of  itself,  solve 
the  Scriptural  difficulty.  The  effort  of  Tertullian  to  har- 
monize the  system  of  remissible  and  irremissible  sins  with 
that  solution  of  the  Scriptural  difficulty  which  most  read- 


146         CATHOLIC  CONCEPT  IN  TERTULLIAN'S  WORKS 

ily  comes  forward  thrusts  itself  upon  the  careful  observ- 
er by  its  ill-timed  intrusion  and  ill-fitting  substance. 

In  the  objection  as  formulated  from  St.  John,  we  find  it 
is  true,  reference  to  pardon.  In  fact  the  objection  itself 
was  brought  about  by  the  reflection  that  Tertullian's  doc- 
trine on  irremissible  sins  would  make  St.  John  inconsist- 
ent. In  the  answer,  then,  to  that  view  of  the  objection, 
we  expect  Tertullian  to  show  the  value  of  his  doctrine  in 
face  of  the  objection.  But  Tertullian,  vi^hile  giving  the 
very  acceptable  distinction  between  grievous  and  non- 
grievous  sin,  merely  repeats  his  view  on  remissible  and 
irremissible  sin.  The  cotidiana  are  labeled  remissible, 
the  exitiosa  irremissible.  The  reason  why  the  cotidixmcL 
are  remissible  is  Christ's  intermediation,  the  reason  why 
the  exitiosa  are  irremissible  is  the  absence  of  Christ's  in- 
termediation. The  cotidiana  evidently  are  pardonable ;  if 
they  were  not,  all  men  would  be  lost.  God  could  not  be  so 
unmerciful.  The  intermediation  of  Christ  and  the  re- 
fusal thereof  are  obviously  mere  synonymic  expressions 
for  remissibility  and  irremissibility.  They  do  not  re- 
move the  grounds  on  which  the  Psychics,  really  or  sup- 
posedly, based  their  objection. 

The  objection  from  St.  John  would,  indeed,  remain  if 
the  distinction  between  grievous  and  non-grievous  sin 
were  omitted.  Mention  of  remissibility  and  irremissi- 
bility alone  could  not  have  met  the  Scriptural  objection. 
Tertullian's  reference  to  remissible  sin  is,  therefore,  un- 
satisfactory because  he  adduces  the  cotidiana  only.  Other 
sins  that  are  remissible,  but  are  indeed  not  among  the 
cotidiana  (Pud.  7),  have  been  omitted,  although  their 
mention  and,  perhaps,  a  brief  explanation  of  their  rela- 
tion to  pardon  should  have  been  made  by  Tertullian,  if 
he  were  sincerely  answering  the  objections  of  the  Psy- 
chics. 

The  interpretation,  then,  which  we  have  given  of  Ter- 
tullian's  thought  in  the  passage  referred  to  cannot  be  said 
to  be  arbitrary  since  it  takes  up  the  one  obvious  solution 
to  the  Scriptural  objection  which  we  could  rightly  expect 
of  Tertullian  even  in  the  heat  of  his  defense.  Granted 
even  that  the  interpretation  is  arbitrary  in  so  far  as  it 


CATHOLIC  CONCEPT  IN  TERTULLIAN'S  WORKS         147 

seeks  to  make  the  question  of  remissibility  and  irremissi- 
bility  a  secondary  matter,  granted  again,  that  this  ques- 
tion should  be,  and  is  primary,  there  still  remains  the  un- 
deniable distinction  between  sins,  the  note  of  God*s  son- 
ship  attached  to  the  non-grievous,  and  the  note  of  the  loss 
of  God's  sonship  attached  to  the  grievous  sin,  at  least  to 
the  ones  here  mentioned.  It  is  obvious  that  Tertullian 
has  not  denied  the  existence  of  a  distinction  of  sins  ac- 
cording to  the  presence  or  absence  of  God's  sonship.  So 
much  is  beyond  a  doubt  from  the  above  discussion. 

Perhaps  the  only  difficulty  that  has  the  appearance  of 
seriousness  to  the  passing  reader  is  the  one  based  on  the 
passage:  si  nulla  sit  venia  istorum  (scl.  delictorum  coti- 
dianorum) ,  nemini  salus  competat,^^  On  these  words  one 
could  construct  the  objection  that  even  the  slightest  sins 
of  daily  life  are  in  themselves  of  a  grievous  nature.  If 
the  sins  of  daily  life  were  not  pardonable,  all  would  be 
lost,  that  is,  the  sonship  of  God  would  not  belong  to  any- 
one, which  loss  of  God's  sonship  is  precisely  the  effect  that 
shows  a  delictum  to  be  of  a  grievous  nature,  as  we  have 
seen  in  the  preceding  investigation  of  Tertullian's  at- 
tempt at  solving  the  difficulty  from  St.  John. 

Before  entering  upon  a  definite  reply  to  this  objection 
concerning  the  passage  si  nulla  sit,  etc.,  we  should  state, 
for  the  sake  of  a  fair  understanding  of  the  passage  quot- 
ed, that  the  Catholic  concept  of  venial  sin  can  just  as 
easily  and  correctly  be  placed  on  the  words  in  question.^ 
The  Catholic  concept  of  the  nature  of  venial  sin  is  not  at 
all  incompatible  with  the  diction  here  used  by  Tertullian. 
It  is  true,  the  diction  of  Tertullian  would  not  give  an  ac- 
curate view  of  the  nature  of  venial  sin,  but  nevertheless 
it  is  far  from  condemning,  or  excluding,  the  Catholic  con- 
cept. As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  obvious  understanding  of  y 
the  term  venial  sin  comprises  the  element  of  pardon  as 
the  most  appropriate  interpretation  of  venial.  No  one 
will  deny  that,  at  first  glance,  the  distinction  of  venial  and 
mortal  sin  seems  by  reason  of  terminology  inadequate. 
A  more  appropriate  distinction,  if  we  wish  to  indicate 

34    "Pud."  19,  Oehler  I,  p.  838. 


148        CATHOLIC  CONCEPT  IN  TERTULLIAN'S  WORKS 

the  nature  of  sins  according  to  the  effect,  would  be  griev- 
ous and  non-grievous  sin,  or  mortal  and  non-mortal  sin." 
But  since  we  call  a  grievous  sin  mortal  from  an  effect,  or, 
if  we  view  the  mortalitas  as  a  synonym  for  the  aversio  a 
Deo,  from  a  proprietas  peccati  mortalis,  so  likewise  we 
call  non-grievous  sin  venial  from  a  proprietas  thereof. 
Verum  venialis  nomen  desumptum  est  ab  aliqua  proprie^ 
tate  quae  consequitur  essentiam  talis  peccati,  et  non  con- 
stituit  earn.  Non  enim  ideo  est  tale  peccatum  quia  tran- 
sitoria  tantum  poena  ei  debetur,  sed  omnino  e  converso,^* 
We  mention  this  merely  to  show  that  the  terminology 
used  in  speaking  of  grievous  and  non-grievous  sin  is  justi- 
fied by  the  common  view  taken  of  the  distinction  between 
those  sins.  A  far-reaching  importance  attaching  to  the 
more  apparent  than  real  inadequacy  of  the  terms  is  out 
of  the  question. 

Tertullian,  then,  in  speaking  of  pardon  as  quite  neces- 
sarily following  sins  of  daily  committal  has  not  made  a 
statement  which  condemns  the  Catholic  teaching  on  the 
nature  of  venial  sin,  since  amply  expounded  by  St.  Thom- 
as.^^  If  the  diction  of  Tertullian  excluded  all  other  inter- 
pretation and  meant  this  only,  that  the  nature  of  the 
light  sins,  i.  e.,  of  daily  committal,  depended  upon  their 
pardon  and  not  their  pardon  upon  their  nature,  then  we 
should  admit  that  Tertullian  could  be  quoted  against  the 
Catholic  teaching  and  that  Baius  would  have  found  sup- 
port in  him  for  the  proposition  which  Pius  V  condemned : 
Nullum  est  peccatum  ex  natura  sua  veniale,  sed  omne 
peccatum  meretur  poenam  aetemxim.^^  We  cannot  admit 
however,  that  just  this  one  interpretation  of  Tertullian's 
texts  on  pardonable  sins  of  daily  committal  is  possible, 
since  various  other  views  of  the  words  of  Tertullian  sug- 
gest themselves  spontaneously.  Is  his  view  of  daily  sins 
one  that  is  based  on  an  analysis  of  the  concept  of  venial 
sin  in  se,  or  is  he  epitomizing  a  reductio  ad  absurdum 

35  Billot,  op.  cit.,  p.  io6. 

36  Ibid. 

37  "De  Malo,"  qu.  7,  a.  i. 

38  Denzinger-Bannwart,   "Enchiridion    Symbolorum,"    No.    1020, 
loth  edition,  Freiburg  i.  Br.  1908. 


CATHOLIC  CONCEPT  IN  TERTULLIAN'S  WORKS  149 

without  any  further  thought  of  the  prevailing  concept  of 
light  sin? 

Thus  far  we  have  considered  the  mere  wording  of  the 
text.  If  we  consider  the  context,  the  matter  becomes  even 
more  easy  to  understand.  For,  as  is  evident  from  the 
principal  argument  we  have  constructed  on  the  concept 
of  the  sonship  of  God  and  the  loss  thereof,  Tertullian  has 
placed  suflficient  stress  on  that  one  thought  to  carry  in  its 
momentum  the  trend  of  the  whole  solution  and  to  override 
all  difficulties.  The  minor  parts  of  his  discussion  must 
be  judged,  and,  if  obscure,  solved  by  this  controlling 
thought.  The  concept  of  the  relation  of  a  sinful  soul  to 
the  sonship  of  God  remains  decisive.  It  is  with  that  con- 
cept that  Tertullian  tries  to  harmonize  his  view  on  re- 
missibility  and  irremissibility  of  sin.  How  unmindful  of 
the  inconsistency  with  other  parts  of  his  division  of  sin 
his  method  of  argumentation  shows  him  to  be,  has  been 
mentioned  in  other  pages.  The  question  of  pardon  or  of 
its  denial  does  not  change  the  outstanding  thought  in  his 
lines  of  reply.  The  difficulty,  therefore,  which  has  been 
brought  concerning  the  words  si  nulla  sit,  etc.,  must,  if 
it  cannot  be  solved  in  the  text  itself,  find  a  solution  in  the 
accompanying  context,  which,  as  seen,  favors  the  Catho- 
lic concept  of  a  distinction  between  mortal  and  venial  sin. 

Once  we  admit,  as  we  believe  a  fair-minded  perusal  of 
the  latter  half  of  Pitd.  19  leads  us  to  do,  that  the  relation 
of  the  sinner  to  the  sonship  of  God  is  the  established  so- 
lution of  St.  John's  seeming  contradiction,  the  whole  con- 
text including  the  words  si  nulla  sit,  etc.,  unravels  itself 
with  ease.  All  of  us  are  subject  to  sin,  and  that  every 
day.  Tertullian  mentions  the  sins  we  are  so  liable  to 
commit.  And  he  enumerates  the  various  conditions  of 
life  in  which  we  are  tempted:  quanta  tentamur.  With 
all  these  temptations  around  us,  Tertullian  implies  it 
would  be  foolish  to  suppose  that  there  is  no  pardon  grant- 
ed for  transgressions  in  conditions  so  frequently  and 
pressingly  misleading  to  the  commission  of  minor  faults. 

The  following  observations  are  not  advanced  as  an  ar- 
gument but  merely  as  a  reflection  on  Tertullian's  attitude 
toward  the  distinction  between  grievous  and  non-griev- 


150         CATHOLIC  CONCEPT  IN  TERTULLIAN'S  WORKS 

ous  sin.  We  cannot,  by  any  stretch  of  the  imagination, 
consider  Tertullian  so  narrow  minded  as  not  to  have  seen 
the  embarrassment  he  would  have  to  face,  if  he  were  un- 
derstood to  say  that  we  are  continually  gaining  and  los- 
ing the  sonship  of  God,  or,  which  is  still  less  reasonable, 
that  all  Christians,  being  subject  to  sin  daily,  are  practi- 
cally always  deprived  of  the  sonship  of  God.  But  this 
latter  conclusion  is  the  only  one  we  can  arrive  at  if  we 
accept  the  interpretation  of  the  passage  si  nulla  sit,  etc., 
in  the  sense  opposed  to  the  Catholic  concept. 

Granted  that  untenable  conclusion,  then  the  whole  con- 
text of  Tertullian's  solution  to  the  difficulty  from  St.  John 
becomes  one  unintelligible  paragraph  of  contradictory 
statements.  He  has  omitted,  as  the  text  shows,  all  refer- 
ence to  the  various  kinds  of  demonstrably  grievous  sins 
mentioned  in  Pud.  7  or,  for  that  matter,  to  the  delicta  le- 
viora  mentioned  at  the  end  of  Pud.  18.  We  do  not  con- 
sider the  objection  constructed  on  the  words  si  nulla  sit, 
etc.,  as  in  any  way  detrimental  to  the  exposition  offered, 
which  gives  the  Catholic  concept  of  venial  sin,  principally, 
because  the  objection  cannot  stand  the  test  of  contextual 
investigation. 

If  we  go  back  further  to  the  broader  lines  of  Tertul- 
lian's  doctrine  as  proposed  in  Pud.  we  find  no  reason  why 
he  should  have  attacked  the  doctrine  of  a  distinction  of 
sins,  which  is  based  not  on  the  degree  but  on  the  nature 
of  the  offense  in  se.  Tertullian's  purpose  in  writing  the 
Pud.  was,  as  has  been  frequently  pointed  out,  and  as  is 
evident  from  a  superficial  reading  of  the  work,  the  de- 
fense of  his  attitude  on  the  irremissibility  of  certain  sins 
in  opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Psychics,  which  had 
been  summarized  in  the  discipline  enunciated  in  the 
^dict  of  Callixtus.  Tertullian  is  concerned,  not  with  a 
thorough  understanding  of  the  nature  of  any  offense,  in 
so  far  as  it  is  merely  a  transgression,  but  with  those  sins, 
which  are  in  degree  of  guilt  so  great,  that  they  are  to  be 
considered  irremissible.  He  wants  a  sharp  line  drawn 
between  sins,  the  commission  of  which  makes  possible  the 
interpretation  of  St.  John's  statement  that  we  all  sin, 


CATHOIC  CONCEPT  IN   TERTULLIAN'S  WORKS        151 

and  sins,  the  committal  of  which  explains  the  other  state- 
ment of  St.  John  that  we  do  not  sin. 

An  interdependent  necessary  connection  between  the 
concepts  of  venM  and  mortal  on  the  one  hand  and  the 
concepts  of  remissible  and  irremissible  on  the  other  is 
not  evident  from  any  passage  or  series  of  contexts  in 
Tertullian's  works.  Nor  do  we  find  in  his  argumenta- 
tion any  basis  for  the  assumption  that  he  believed,  or 
even  presupposed,  an  essential  coherence  between  the 
two  series  of  concepts  mentioned.  If  the  contrary  could 
be  established  we  should  be  obliged  to  admit  that  it  in- 
fluenced the  ideas  in  Pvd.  19,  and  the  objection  found  in 
the  words  si  nulla  sit  venia,  etc.,  would  have  at  least  a 
semblance  of  probability. 

The  preceding  investigation  has  aimed  at  viewing  the 
whole  passage  of  Picd,  19,  dealing  with  the  distinction  of 
sins,  from  every  angle,  favorable  and  unfavorable,  to 
the  Catholic  contention  that  tradition  upholds  the  dis- 
tinction Baius  and  others  have  denied.^^  There  remains 
to  be  seen  what  light  the  passage,  in  several  of  its  de- 
tails, throws  on  the  interpretation  offered. 

The  lists  of  sins,  both  venial  and  mortal,  will  profitably 
occupy  our  attention,  and,  while  they  of  themselves  can- 
not, perhaps,  establish  the  nature  of  the  respective  sin, 
that  is,  in  regard  to  the  presence  or  absence  of  God's 
sonship,  the  consideration  of  the  two  lists,  in  general, 
and  of  the  sins  thereof,  separately,  will,  we  believe,  con- 
firm the  reasonableness  of  our  interpretation. 

To  begin  with  general  observations  on  the  juxtaposi- 
tion of  the  two  lists,  we  find  the  grievous  sins  called  cov^ 
traria  istis,  i.  e.,  delictis  cotidianis.  The  two  classes  are 
therefore  opposed  to  each  other.  This  opposition  can- 
not be  said  to  be  merely  a  mater  of  degree.  The  daily 
sins  receive  pardon,  says  Tertullian,  the  exitiosa  do  not. 
We  all  are  subject  to  the  delicta  cotidiana,  but  one  who 
is  bom  of  God,  as  all  Christians  are,  avoid  the  delicta 
exitiosa,  A  possible  gradation  of  grievousness  between 
these  two  classes  seems   out  of  question.     Tertullian 

39    "Cath.  Encycl."  Vol.  XIV,  article  on  Sin,  pp.  4  sqq.,  O'Neil. 


152         CATHOLIC  CONCEPT  IN  TERTULLIAN'S  WORKS 

would  not  be  justified  in  making  this  contrast  so 
tangible  if  mortal  and  venial  sin  were  alike  in  nature 
and  different  in  degree  only.  If  it  be  remembered  that 
this  distinction  in  the  nature  of  sin  was  offered  in  solu- 
tion of  St.  John's  apparent  contradiction  (that  we  sin 
and  do  not  sin)  the  contrast  becomes  still  more  marked. 

The  consideration  of  this  opposition  leads  on  to  the 
question  as  to  what  Tertullian  meant  by  the  use  of  the 
term  graviora  in  this  connection.  It  would  seem,  from 
the  general  trend  of  Tertullian's  argumentation,  that 
his  purpose  is  to  mention  only  two  general  kinds  of  sins, 
and  these  with  the  purpose  of  answering  the  objection 
based  on  St.  John's  epistle.  Graviora  would  then  be 
merely  another  designation  for  exitiosa.  Still  it  is  not 
excluded  that  Tertullian  wished  to  mention  more  than 
one  species  under  the  general  heading  of  delicta  con- 
traria  istis.  This  acceptation  would  be  quite  admissible 
had  he  made  any  reference  later  on  to  the  term  graviora. 
But  as  we  have  seen  above  he  insisted  on  adducing  such 
terms  and  concepts  that  would  readily  lend  themselves 
to  his  doctrine. 

Much  stress  cannot  be  placed  on  a  distinction  between 
graviora  and  exitiosa,  because  we  have  no  sufficiently 
solid  basis  for  the  assumption  in  the  text  beyond  the 
mere  mention  of  the  two  terms.  The  mere  use  of  a 
modifying  term,  as  graviora  seems  to  be  of  exitiosa, 
would  hardly  grant  us  sufficient  ground  upon  which  to 
construct  a  concept  favorable  to  the  interpretation  we 
have  placed  on  Tertullian's  distinction  between  the  de- 
licta he  enumerates  as  non-destructive  and  the  delicta 
he  enumerates  as  destructive  of  the  sonship  of  God.  As- 
suming however,  and  not  unreasonably,  that  Tertullian 
wished  to  adduce  more  than  one  species  of  delicta  of  the 
latter  sort,  we  see  therein  a  confirmation  of  the  state- 
ment that  Tertullian  upheld  the  Catholic  concept  of  a  dis^ 
tinction  between  mortal  and  venial  sin.  For  we  would 
have  here,  in  opposition  to  delicta  cotidiana,  not  merely 
the  extreme  class,  which,  according  to  Tertullian,  is  ir- 


CATHOLIC  CONCEPT  IN  TEJRTULLIAN'S  WORKS         153 

remissible,  but  also  a  class  of  sins,  which,  while  remis- 
sible, are  still  destructive  of  God's  sonship. 

From  the  use  of  the  comparative  form  graviora  no 
serious  conclusion  should  be  drawn  as  to  Tertullian's 
view  on  the  substance  of  the  distinction  between  mortal 
and  venial  sin.  The  rarer  sins  are  not  merely  greater  in 
degree  than  the  delicta  cotidiana.  The  term  contraria 
would  be  adverse  to  that  meaning  of  graviora  and,  after 
all,  the  term  contraria  istis  is  decisive  here  since  it  fits 
so  well  into  the  concepts  of  sins,  destructive  and  non- 
destructive of  God*s  sonship,  and  controls  the  solution 
of  the  apparent  contradiction:  that  we  sin  and  that  we 
do  not  sin. 

A  brief  inspection  of  the  daily  sins  listed  by  Tertul- 
lian  in  this  chapter  will,  we  believe,  result  favorably  to 
the  Catholic  concept  of  venial  sin.  The  daily  sins  enu- 
merated are :  irasci  inique,  et  ultra  solis  occasum,  aut  et 
manum  immittere,  aut  facile  maledicere,  aut  temere 
iurare,  aut  fidem  pacti  destruere,  aut  verecundia  aut  ne- 
cessitate mentiri.^^ 

Of  these  sins  we  can  say  without  much  fear  of  con- 
tradiction that  two,  facile  maledicere,  temere  iurare, 
have  reference  to  defective  prerequisite  conditions  of 
imputability :  imperfect  cognition  and  imperfect  volition 
Facile  maledicere,  most  probably,  means  the  habit  of  us- 
ing curse  words  without  forethought.  Temere  iurare 
can  easily  be  understood  to  mean  the  calling  upon  God 
as  witness  without  reflecting  on  the  necessity  of  such  an 
act.  From  Tertullian's  wording  we  believe  we  are  just- 
fied  in  assuming  that  to  curse  with  premeditation  and  to 
swear  without  sufficient  cause  belong  to  the  grievous 
faults.*^  The  qualifying  terms  facile  and  temere  seem  to 
indicate  that  certain  sins,  that  are  otherwise  grievous, 

40  "Pud."  19,  Oehler  I,  p.  838. 

41  Bingham,  "Antiquities,"  Vol.  VI,  p.  356.  Bingham  quotes 
Tertullian  as  saying  expressly :  "that  every  rash  and  vain  oath  did 
not  bring  a  man  under  the  discipline  of  public  penance,  but  was 
reckoned  among  the  sins  of  daily  incursion,  for  wTiich  private  re- 
pentance was  appointed."  This  cannot  be  said  to  be  an  exact 
version  of  the  Tertullianic  passage  in  question. 


154         CATHOLIC  CONCEPT  IN  TERTULLIAN'S  WORKS 

become  non-grievous  through  a  defect  in  advertence  or 
consent.  It  is  not  at  all  improbable  that  Tertullian,  in 
using  the  modifying  adverbs,  had  that  species  of  venial 
|c<^  sin  in  mind  which  we  may  classify  as  veniale  ex  defectu 
though  mortale  per  se.  Not  only  is  it  not  improbable 
that  this  consideration  of  non-grievous  sin  was  a  matter 
thoroughly  understood  by  Tertullian  and,  perhaps  by  a 
large  number  of  the  faithful,  who  undoubtedly,  in  their 
interpretation  of  disciplinary  regulations,  entered  upon 
the  finer  points,  as  seems  hinted  at  in  the  nice  choice  of 
facile  and  temere,  but,  in  view  of  Tertullian's  compre- 
hensive grasp  of  the  prerequisites  of  sin,  the  interpreta- 
tion given  fits  very  logically  into  the  proposed  explana- 
tion of  the  whole  context. 

Anger  seems  to  be  subdivided  into  three  classes:  un- 
just anger,  anger  beyond  sunset,  anger  to  the  extent  of 
using  physical  violence.  That  there  is  a  just  anger  is 
implied  by  the  expression  i7^asci  iniqiie.  Just  anger  is, 
of  course,  not  sinful.  The  enumeration  of  anger  (ex- 
clusive of  the  sense  of  revenge)  among  the  light  sins  by 
Tertullian  is  in  accord  with  the  traditional  view.  Our 
moral  theology  text  books  teach  the  same.  Tertullian 
cannot  be  accused  of  a  rigoristic  view  in  his  explanation 
of  the  sinfulness  of  anger  since  in  his  opinion  even  strik- 
ing another  in  anger  is  but  a  small  sin.  In  the  matter 
of  anger,  it  is  not  a  question  of  the  lack  of  advertence  and 
consent  as  is  the  case  of  facile  maledicere  and  temere 
iurare.  It  might  be  argued  that  the  use  of  physical  vio- 
%  lence  in  a  fit  of  anger  frequently  occurs  without  full  ad- 
vertence and  deliberate  consent,  and  that,  hence,  Tertul- 
lian probably  counts  anger  among  the  grievous  faults  as 
such,  but  admits  that  the  lack  of  prerequisites  reduce  it 
to  a  non-grievous  fault.  Abstracting  from  the  possibili- 
ty that  Tertullian,  in  the  use  of  the  expression  manum 
immittere  could  easily  have  included  those  instances  in 
which  physical  violence  in  anger  occurs  with  full  delib- 
eration and  consent,  we  might  call  attention  to  the  in- 
consistency implied  by  the  supposition  that  anger  could 
ordinarily  continue  tdtra  solis  occasum  without  adver- 


CATHOLIC  CONCEPT  IN  TERTULLIANS  WORKS         155 

tence  and  consent.  And  Tertullian  mentions  this  species 
of  anger  as  belonging  to  the  daily  faults.  Moreover  Ter- 
tullian mentions,  as  the  first  of  the  daily  faults  and  the 
first  of  the  various  species  of  anger,  inique  irasci.  The 
modifying  term  inique  does  not  refer  to  advertence  or 
consent,  as  do  the  other  modifiers  considered  above, 
namely,  facile  and  temere,  Iniqv£  irasci  can  have  no 
other  meaning,  apparently,  than  that  of  sinful  anger. ^^ 
If,  therefore,  anger  is  sinful,  it  is  but  one  of  the  daily 
faults,  which  do  not  destroy  the  sonship  of  God.  We 
have,  then,  in  Tertullian's  mention  of  anger,  an  example 
of  a  non-grievous  sin  which  is  such  in  its  very  nature. 
Catholic  teaching  concerning  gins  that  are  venial  ex  na- 
tura  sua  finds,  we  believe,  in  the  analysis  of  this  term  a 
very  probable  argument  in  its  favor. 

"White"  lies,  verecundia  aut  necessitate  mentiri,  are 
among  the  daily  sins.  Shame  or  necessity  do  not  of 
themselves  exclude  deliberation  and  full  consent.  That 
Tertullian  is  not  thinking  of  importantly  consequential 
falsehoods  seems  evident  from  the  term  "daily".  Hence, 
small  but  deliberate  lies  are,  to  all  appearance,  the  sins 
he  has  reference  to  in  the  term  vercundia  aut  necessitate 
mentiri.  This  consideration,  again,  would  favor  the 
Catholic  doctrine  concerning  the  existence  of  sins  that 
are  venial  ex  natura  sv/i. 

The  enumeration  of  fidem  pacti  destruere  among  the 
light  sins  causes,  perhaps,  some  surprise.*^  We  are  not 
able  to  state  precisely  what  Tertullian  meant  by  that  ex- 
pression. The  ANF.  translation  "forfeiting  the  plighted 
word"  comes  quite  close  to  what  we  would  be  inclined  to 
consider  as  the  most  probable  meaning.  From  the  very 
supposition  that  among  Christians  this  sin  is  of  daily  oc- 
curence, and  that  it  is  on  a  par  with  "white"  lies,  we  do 
not  believe  that  the  term  comprehends  more  than 
neglecting  inconsequential  promises.  The  surprise, 
which  its  enumeration  among  daily  sins  causes,  does  not 

4a    **Orat."  II,  Oehler  I,  p.  565.  Si  irascenrum  est,  non  ultra  solis 
receptum,  ut  Apostolus  admonet. 
43    Noeldechen,  "Tertullian,"  p.  493. 


156         CATHOLIC  CONCEPT  IN  TERTULLIAN'S  WORKS 

delete  it  from  the  list  nor  obscure  the  fact  that  again 
there  is  no  question  of  imperfect  prerequisites.  Fidem 
pacti  destmere  must  be  considered  non-grievous,  as  are 
the  other  daily  sins  enumerated  before  and  after  it,  a  sin 
that  is  non-grievous  in  its  very  nature. 

What  sins  were  considered  mortal  (in  Catholic  sense) 
in  the  day  of  TertuUian  is  a  matter  that  cannot  be  defi- 
nitely stated  at  the  present  stage  of  investigation,  Ter- 
tullian  himself  most  probably  considered  all  sins  except 
the  cotidiana  as  destructive  of  God's  sonship,  even  the 
leviora  of  Pud.  18.  Making  due  allowance  for  the  rigor- 
ism of  TertuUian's  works  we  would  deduce  from  them 
that  the  following  sins  were  most  probably  considered 
grievous  by  the  faithful :  Murder,"*  idolatry,  deed-sins  of 
the  flesh,  blasphemy,  apostasy,  denial  of  faith,  false  or 
unnecessary  deliberate  oaths.  We  are  not  sure  from 
TertuUian  that  we  may  enumerate  evil  thoughts  and  de- 
sires to  the  preceding.  There  are  no  passages  in  his 
works  that  would  give  us  enough  basis  to  form  even  a 
general  estimate  as  to  what  he  considered  grievously 
wrong  in  commutative  justice.  A  passage  in  Apol.  39 
will  perhaps  explain  why  we  find  little  or  no  discussion 
of  theft  or  robbery  :*'  Itaque  qui  animo  animaque  misce- 
mur,  nihil  de  rei  communicatione  dubitamus.  Omnia  in^ 
discreta  sunt  apud  nos  praeter  uxores. 

Indications  as  to  the  degree  of  malice  of  other  sins  are 
so  general  that  speculation  as  to  what  other  sins  were 
considered  mortal  by  the  faithful  is  fruitless  at  present. 

We  might  add  that,  in  speaking  of  sin  and  assigning 
it  a  degree  of  gravity,  TertuUian  undoubtedly  under- 
stands the  individual  act,  not  a  series  of  acts.  This  is  evi- 
dent not  only  from  his  general  view  on  Christian  per- 
fection but  also  from  the  many  passages  in  which  delio 
turn  is  used  in  preference  to  a  term  indicative  of  evil 
habit. 


44  P'Alcs,  "La  Theol.  de  Tert.,"  p.  277 :  II  semble  permettre  aux 
medecins  rembryotomie. — "Anim."  25:  In  ipso  adhuc  utero  infans 
trucidatur  necc^saria  cruelitate infanticidii  officio. 

45  Oehler  I,  p.  262.    Cf.  "Adv.  Marc."  II,  20;  IV,  24. 


SUMMARY  157 

CHAPTER  XV. 
SUMMARY. 

A  comparison  between  the  passages  on  grievous  sin 
in  the  early  writings  and  the  treatises  on  the  same  sub- 
ject in  the  age  of  the  Theologians  will  show  a  difference 
in  terminology,  but  not  in  concept.  The  treatises  teach 
that  mortal  sin  is  a  transgression  of  divine  law  in  serious 
matter,  that  the  transgression,  to  be  morally  imputable, 
must  be  conscious  and  voluntary,  implying  a  separation 
from  God,  hence,  a  conscious  and  voluntary  preference 
of  the  created  to  the  Creator.  In  a  person  who  has  been 
sanctified  by  divine  grace,  the  transgression  means  the 
loss  of  this  gift,  the  non-participation  of  the  indwelling 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  loss  of  the  sonship  of  God.  It  en- 
tails, furthermore,  unless  reconciliation  takes  place,  the 
loss  of  eternal  life.  These  conditions,  elements,  and 
effects  of  grievous  sin  are  found  substantially  in  the 
early  documents.  As  we  have  seen  in  the  study  of  the 
passages  from  the  works  of  Justin,  Irenaeus  and  Ter- 
tullian,  moral  cognition  and  moral  volition  are  explain- 
ed and  defended  ex  professo.  Their  writings  teach  that 
grievous  sin  is  impossible  where  these  prerequisites  are 
wanting.  Even  in  so  early  a  document  as  the  Epistle  of 
Barnabas  we  find  knowledge  mentioned  explicitly,  and 
consent  obviously  implied,  as  prerequisites  of  imputa- 
bility. 

The  malice  of  mortal  sin,  the  separation  from  God,  the 
ultimate  end  of  man,  is  well  given  in  the  Shepherd's  ad- 
aptation of  the  Scriptural  expression  "departure  from 
the  living  God."  Various  writings  describe  the  effects  of 
this  malice  as  non-participation  of  the  Spirit  of  God, 
privation  of  "the  hope  of  life",  inrniediate  death  of  the 
soul,  rejection  by  God,  eventually  the  loss  of  life  eternal. 

The  distinction  between  the  frequent  and  the  single 
act  of  sin  is  founded,  we  believe,  on  sufficient  evidence. 
Expressions  and  passages,  have  been  adduced  which,  we 


158  SUMMARY 

believe,  will  solve  the  doubt  as  to  whether  the  early 
Christians,  by  grievous  sin,  meant  the  individual  trans- 
gression or  the  habit,  the  frequent  repetition  of  disre- 
gard for  divine  law. 

The  division  of  sins  into  those  of  thought,  word,  and 
deed  is  evident  from  many  passages.  Irenaeus  is  the 
first  to  mention  the  three  species  explicitly. 

The  sins  mentioned  in  the  Didache  as  grievous  seem  to 
have  been  considered  such  in  all  the  subsequent  docu- 
ments. Others  were  added  to  the  list  in  the  course  of 
time,  but  more  by  way  of  comprehensiveness  than  by 
way  of  an  attempt  at  a  reconstructed  enumeration. 
Idolatry,  heresy,  apostasy,  murder,  sins  of  impurity, 
theft,  robbery,  false  witnessing,  these  transgressions  of 
the  divine  law  were  consistently  considered  grievous.  A 
satisfactory  comparison  of  the  variations  or  differences 
in  enumeration  in  the  various  documents  can  be  attempt- 
ed only  after  the  terms  of  morality  in  Scripture  and 
their  definite  value  in  the  early  writings  are  established. 

In  our  opinion  the  terms  mortal  and  capital  were  not 
standardized  expressions,  nor  can  it  be  demonstrated 
from  Tertullian's  work  that  they  were  used  synonymous- 
ly. 

There  seems  to  be  conclusive  proof  that  a  distinction 
was  made  between  mortal  and  venial  sin  even  in  the  Pre- 
Tertullianic  period.  Passages  of  the  Didache  strongly 
support  this  contention. 

We  are  satisfied  that  Tertullian  had  a  precise  concept 
of  the  distinction  between  mortal  and  venial  sin.  His 
solution  of  the  Scriptural  assertions  that  we  do  sin  and 
do  not  sin,  by  adducing  the  peccata  cotidiana  as  non-de- 
structive of  God's  sonship  and  the  peccata  exitiosa  as  de- 
structive thereof,  discloses  his  mind  on  this  question. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  159 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 

Adam,  Der  Kirchenbegriff  Tertullians  (in  Forschungen 

zur    Christ.      Literatur    u.Dogmengeschichte,    VI. 

Heft  4)  Paderbom,  1907. 
D'Ales,  La  Theologie  de  Tertullien,  Paris,  1905. 
D'Ales,  UEdit  de  Calliste,    Paris,  1914. 
Allen,  The  Continuity  of  Christian  Thought,  New  York, 

1900. 
Alphonsus,  St.,  Theologia  Moralis,  ed.  Haringer,  Ratis- 

bonae,  1846. 
Ante-Nicene  Fathers,  The,  10  vols.   (American  Reprint 

of  Edinburgh  Edition)  New  York,  1899. 
Bardenhewer,  Geschichte  der  Altkirchlichen  Literatur, 

3  vols.,  2nd  ed.  Freiburg  i.Br.  1914. 
Bardenhewer,  Patrologie,  2nd  ed.  Freiburg  i.  Br.  1901, 

(Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Eng.  ed.  St.  Louis,  1908). 
Bartman,  Lehrbuch  der  Dogmatik,  2nd  ed.  Freiburg  i. 

Br.,  1911. 
Batiffol,  Etudes  d'Histoire  et  de  Theologie  Positive, 

Paris,  1902. 
Baumeister,  Die  Ethik  des  Pastor  Hermae,  Freiburg  i. 

B.  1912. 
Biblical  and  Theological  Studies,  Faculty  of  Princeton 

Seminary.    New  York,  1912. 
BiGELMAiR,  Die  Beteiligung  der  Christen  am  offentlichen 

Leben  in  vorconstantinischer  Zeit.  Muenchen,  1902. 
Billot,  Disquisitio  de  Natura  et  Ratione  Peccati  Person- 
alis, 2nd,  ed.    Rome,  1897. 
Bingham,  Antiquities,  Vols.  6,  7.    Oxford,  1855. 
Bona  VENTURE,  St.,  Opera  Omnia,  Comment,  in  Sent.  II, 

dist.  35,  dub.  6.  (vol.  II).    Quaracchi,  1885. 
BOUQUILLON,  Theologia  Moralis  Fundamentalis,  2nd  ed. 

Bruges,  1890. 
Carpenter,  Phases  of  Early  Christianity.    New  York, 

1916. 
Catholic  Encyclopedia,  The,  New  York,  1912. 
Casey,  Notes   on  a  History   of  Auricular  Confession, 

Philadelphia,  1889. 
Clemen,  Die  christliche  Lehre  von  der  Suende.       (1st 

Part).  Gottingen,  1897. 
Cruttwell,  a  Literary  History  of  Early  Christianity. 

2  vols.  London,  1893. 
Cursus  Scripturae  Sacrae — Commentarii  in  Epistolas  S. 

Pauli,  Presbyteri  Societatis  Jesu.    Paris,  1892. 
Davidson,  The  Theology  of  the  Old  Testament.      New 

York,  1904. 


160  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Denzinger,  Enchiridion  Symbolorum  et  Definitionum. 

10th  ed.   (Bannwart)  Friburgi  Brisgoviae,  1908. 
Dictionary  of  Doctrinal  and  Historical  Theology,  Lon- 
don, 1870. 
DiGBY,  Mores  Catholici.    New  York,  1905. 
DoBSCHUETZ,  Christian  Life  in  the  Primitive  Church. 

(Transl.  from  German).    New  York,  1904. 
DOllinger,   Hippolyttis   and    Callistus,    (Transl.    from 

Germ.).    Edinburgh,  1876. 
Donaldson,  History  of  Christian  Literature  and  Doc- 
trine,   3  vols.  London,  1866. 
Du  Cange,  Glossarium  Graedtatis,  2  vols.  London,  1688. 
Duchesne,  Origines  du  Culte  Chretien,  3rd  ed.  Paris, 

1902. 
Ehrhard,   Die   altchristliche   Literatur  und   ihre   For- 

schung  seit  1880.    Freiburg  i.  Br.,  1894. 
Ehrhard,  Die  altchristliche  Literatur  und      ihre  Er- 

for  schung  von  1884-1900.  1st  part.     Freiburg  i.  B. 

1900. 
ESSER,   Die  Bu^sschriften   Tertullians,   De   Paenitentia 

und    De    Pudicitia    und    das    IndulgenzediUt    des 

Papstes  Kallistus,    Programme  of  the  University  of 

Bonn,  1905. 
Expositor,  The,  London,  1910,  1913. 
Farrar,  Lives  of  the  Fathers,  2  vols.  Edinburgh,  1889. 
Farrar,  The  Early  Days  of  Christianity.    London,  1882. 
Fisher,  History  of  Christian  DoctHne.    New  York,  1896. 
Fisher,   The   Beginnings   of  Chinstianity,   New   York, 

1890. 
Flemming,  Zur  Beurteilung  des  Christentums  Justins 

des  Maertyrers.    Leipzig,  1892. 
Forschungen  zur  christlichen  Literatur  und  Dogmenges- 

chichte.  Vol.  VIII,  1908. 
Foster,  Studies  in  Theology — Sin.    New  York,  1899. 
Funk,  KirchengeschichtUche  Abhandlungen  und  Unter- 

suchungen,  2  vols.     Paderbom,  1897. 
"FvtUKfPatres   Apostolici,   2   vols.   2nd   ed.     Tuebingen, 

1901. 
Gebhardt  und  Harnack,  Texte  und  Unter  suchungen  zur 

Geschichte  der  altchristlichen  Literatur.     Leipzig, 

1886.  sqq. 
Goepfert,  Moraltheologie,   3   vols.   7th   ed.   Paderborri, 

1913. 
Hahn,  Bibliothek  der  Symbole  und  Glaubensregeln  der 

Alten  Kirche,  3rd  ed.,  Breslau,  1897. 
Harnack,  History  of  Dogma,  vols.  I,  II.  (Transl.  from 

3d  German  edition)  Boston,  1896. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  161 

Harnack,  Geschichte  der  Altchristlichen  Litteratur  bis 

Eusebiits,   (Chronologie  2)  Leipzig,  1904. 
Hastings,  Dictionary  of  the  Apostolic  Church,  2  vols. 

New  York,  1916,  1918. 
Herders  KircherUexicon  (various  articles) 
Heron,  The  Church  of  the  Sub-Apostolic  Age,  London, 

1888. 
Irish  Theological  Quarterly,  The,  1917. 
Journal  of  Theological  Studies,  The,  vol.  4.  London,  1902- 

1903. 
Kraus,  Real'Encyklopddie  der  Christlichen  Alterthuem- 

er,    2  vols.    Freiburg  i.  B.  1886. 
KiHN,  Patrologie,  vol.  I,  Paderbom,  1904. 
Klee,  Histoire  des  Dogmes,  3  vols,  (transl.  from  Germ.) 

Liege,  1850. 
Koch-Preuss,  Handbook  of  Moral  Theology,  vol.  II,  St. 

Louis,  1919. 
Krueger,  Geschichte  der  altchristlichen  Literatur.  (2nd 

ed.).    Freiburg  i.  B.  1898. 
KUNZE,  Die  Gotteslehre  des  Irenaeus..  Leipzig,  1891. 
KURTSCHEID,  Das  Beichtsiegel  in  seiner  geschichtlichen 

Enturickelung,    Freiburg  i.  B.  1912. 
De  Labriolle,  Tertullien,  Paris,  1906. 
Lea,  History  of  Auricular  Confession  and  Indulgences, 

Philadelphia,  1896. 
Lehmkuhl,  Theologie  Moralis,  2  vols.  3rd  ed.  Friburgi 

Brisgoviae,  1886. 
LiNSENMANN,  Lehrbuch  der  Moral-Theologie,  Freiburg 

i.  B.  1878. 
LOWRIE,  The  Church  and  its  Organization  in  Primitive 

and  Catholic  Times,  Vol.  I,  New  York,  1904. 
Mausbach,  Catholic  Moral  Teaching  and  its  Antagon- 
ists.     (Transl.  from  6th  German  ed.)    New  York, 

1904. 
McClintock  and  Strong,  Cyclopedia  of  Biblical  Theolo- 
gy and  Ecclesiastical  Literature,  Vol.  VI,  New  York, 

1876. 
MONCEAUX,  Histoire  Litteraire  de  L'Afrique  Chretienne, 

Vol.  I,  Paris,  1901. 
MORINUS,  Commentarius  Historicus  de  Disciplina  in  Ad^ 

ministratione     Sacramenti     Paenitentiae,     Venice, 

1702. 
Migne,  Patrologiae  Graecae  Cursus  Completus,  vols.  I- 

VII,  Paris,  1886. 
MOULTON  and  Geden,  A  Concordance  to  the  Greek  Testa^ 

ment,  2nd  ed.  New  York,  1900. 


162  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Mueller,  Die  ChristUche  Lehre  von  der  Siinde,  5th  ed. 

Breslau,  1867. 
Mueller,  Kirchengeschichte,  2  vols.  Tubingen,  1905  . 
Newman,  Development  of  Christian  Doctrine,  8th  ed. 

London,  1891. 
NiRSCH,  Lehrbuch  der  Patrologie  und  Patristik,  vol.  I, 

Mainz,  1881. 
Noeldechen,  Tertullian.    Gotha,  1890. 
NOLDEN,  Summa  Theologiae  M oralis,  3  vols.;  11th  ed. 

Innsbruck,  1914. 
O'DONNELL,  Penance  in  the  Early  Church,  Dublin,  1907. 
Oehler,  Tertulliani  Opera  Omnia,  2  vols.    Leipzig,  1853. 
Otten,  Manvjal  of  the  History  of  Dogmas.     2  vols.  St. 

Louis,  1918. 
Pesch,   Praelectiones   Dogmaticae,   Vol.   VII,    Friburgi 

Brisgoviae,  1897. 
POHLE,   Lehrbuch  der  Dognmtik,  vol.   III.   Paderbom, 

1906.     (2nded.). 
Prat,  La  Theologie  de  Saint  Paul,  Paris,  1912. 
Preuschen,  Tertullian's  Schriften  de  paenitentia  und  de 

pudicitia,    Giessen,  1890. 
Preuschen,   Vollstdndiges  Griechisch-Deutsches  Hand- 

worterbuch  zu  den  Schriften  des  Neuen  Testaments 

und  der  ubrigen  urchristlichen  Literatur.    Giessen, 

1910. 
Rauschen,  Eucharist  and  Penance,     (Trans,  from  2nd 

German  ed.,  1910),  St.  Louis,  1913. 
Realencyclopddie    fiir    protestantische     Theologie    und 

Kirche.    3rd  ed.  (19th  vol.)  Leipzig,  1907. 
Reifferscheid-Wissowa-Kroymann.  Tertulliani  Opera. 

vol.  20,  pars  I,  Vienna,  1890. 
Resch,  Das  Aposteldekret,  etc.  in  TU.  vol.  13,  Heft  3,  N. 

F.    Leipzig,  1905. 
Revue  d'Histoire  et  de  Litterature  Religieuses,  Paris, 

1897. 
Revue    des    Sciences    Philosophiques    et    Theologiques, 

Nos.  1-2.    Paris,  1920. 
Revue  du  Clerge  Francais,  1907. 
ROLFFS,   Da^   Indulgenzedikt   des   roemischen   Bischofs 

Kallist  in  TU,  II,    Leipzig,  1893. 
Schaff-Herzog,  Encyclopedia  of  Religious  Knowledge, 

The,  Neiv.    New  York,  1908. 
Scheeben,    Handbuch    der    Dogmatik,    Vol.    2.    Frei- 
burg i.  B.,  1878. 
Schenk,     Zum     ethischen     Lehrbegriff     des     Hirten, 

Aschersleben.    1886. 
Schiele,  Die  Religion  in  Geschichte  und  Gegenwart,  4 

vols.    Tubingen,  1913. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  163 

SCHLECHT,  Doctrina  XII  Apostolorum-Die  Apostellehre 

in  der  Liturgie  der  katholischen  Kirche,    Freiburg 

i.  Br.,  1901. 
SCHMITZ,  Die  Busshuecher  und  die  Bussdisziplin  der 

Kirche,    Mainz,  1883. 
SCHULZE,  Die  Entvnckelung  der  Hauptlaster-u,    Haupt- 

tugendlehre  von  Gregor  d.  Gr.  bis  Petrus  Lomh.  u, 

ihr  Einfluss  auf  die  fruehdeutsche  Literatur.  Greif- 

enwald,  1914. 
SCHWANE,  Dogmengeschichte  der  vornicaenischen  Zeit. 

Muenster,  1862. 
SCULLARD,  Early  Christian  Ethics  in  the  West,  London, 

1907. 
Shahan,  The  Beginnings  of  Christianity,  New  York, 

1903. 
SiMAR,  Dogmatik,  3rd  ed.    Freiburg  i.  B.,  189. 
Slaten,  Qioalitative  Nouns  in  the  Pauline  Epistles  and 

their  Translation  in  the  Revised  Version.    Chicago, 

1918. 
Sophocles,  Greek  Lexicon  of  the  Roman  and  Byzantine 

PeHods,  B.  C.  146— A.  D.  1100.  New  York,  1887. 
Stevens,    The   Christian  Doctrine   of  Salvation,    New 

York,  1905. 
Stevens,  The  Theology  of  the  New  Testament.      New 

York,  1903. 
Stevens,  The  Pauline  Theology.    New  York,  1900. 
Strong,  Systematic  Theology,  4th  ed.  New  York,  1893. 
Suarez,  Opera  Omnia,  vols.  4,  9.    Paris,  1856. 
Theologische     Quartalschrift.      Tuebingen,    1872,    1906, 

1908,  1910,  1915,  1917,  1918. 
Thomas,  St.,  Summa  Theologica,  Prima  Secundae,  QQ. 

LXXI-LXXXIX.    De  Malo,  QQ.  I- VIII.  Paris,  1856. 
TiXERONT,  Apologetical  Studies.     (Transl.  from  French) 

St.  Louis,  1917. 
TiXERONT,  Histoire  des  Dogmes,  vol.  I,  La  theologie  An- 

teniceenne,  10th  ed.    Paris,  1905. 
Van  Ackeren,  Die  althochdeutschen  Bezeichnungen  der 

septem  pecc.  crim.  u.  ihrer  filial.    Dortmund,  1904. 
VOLLERT,  Tertullian's  dogmatische  und  ethische  Grund- 

anschauung.     Guetersloh,  .1905. 
Watkins,  a  History  of  Penance,  2  vols.,  London  1920. 
Windisch,  Taufe  und  Suende  im  aeltesten  Christentum 

bis  auf  Origenes.    Tuebingen,  1908. 
Zeitschrift  fuer  katholische  Theologie.   Innsbruck,  1887, 

1889,  1907,  1910. 
ZOECKLER,  Beitrag  z.  Dogmen-u.  Sittengeschichte,  Muen- 

chen,  1893. 

(Articles  by  Vacandard,   Boudinhon,    Stufler,   Funk, 
Bruders,  Fechtrup  et  al.  in  reviews  mentioned). 


^        UNIVERSITAS  CATHOLICA  AMERICAE 


WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 


S.  FACULTAS-THEOLOGICA 


1919-20 


DEUS  LUX  MEA 


THESES 

QUAS 

AD  DOCTORATUS  GRADUM 

IN 

SACRA  THEOLOGIA 

APUD  UNIVERSITATEM  CATHOLICAM  AMERICAE 

CONSEQUENDUM 
PUBLICE  PROPUGNABIT 

HUBERTUS  LUDOVICUS  MOTRY,  S.  T.  L., 

SACERDOS  DIOECESIS  ALBANENSIS 


MORA  IX  A.  M.  DIE  I  lUNII  A.  D.  MCMXX 


No.  15 


THESES  167 


THESES. 

I. 

A  well  defined  concept  of  the  nature  and  effects  of 
grievous  sin  existed  in  early  Christianity. 

II. 
The  prerequisite  conditions  of  imputability,   namely, 
moral  cognition  and  moral  volition,  were  defended  ex 
professo. 

III. 
The  explicit  division  of  sins  into  those  of  thought, 
word  and  deed  dates  back  to  St.  Irenaeus. 

IV. 
Sins  mentioned  in  the  Didache  as  grievous  were  con- 
sistently considered  such  in  subsequent  documents. 

V. 
There  is  not  sufficient  evidence  to  show  that  "mortal" 
and  "capital"  were  standardized  theological  terms  at  the 
time  of  Tertullian. 

VI. 
The  various  passages  of  his  works  in  which  the  terms 
"mortal"  and  '^capital"  occur  do  not  support  the  conten- 
tion that  these  terms  were  synonymous. 

VII. 
The  Tertullianic  term  "mortal  sin"  represented  the 
following  conceptual  content:  the  restriction  of  the 
power  of  remitting  such  sin  to  God  alone  and  a  gravity 
of  offense  that  took  the  offenders  out  of  the  jurisdiction 
and  the  communion  of  the  Church  for  life. 

VIII. 
The  Didache  very  probably  implies  a  distinction  be- 
tween grievous  and  non-grievous  transgression. 

IX. 
In  Tertullian's  works  we  find  conclusive  proof  that 
there  existed  in  his  time  a  precise  concept  of  the  distinc- 
tion between  mortal  and  venial  sin. 

X. 
Even  the   distinction   between   "peccata   venialia   ex 


168  THESES 

genere    suo"    and    "peccata    venialia    ex    imperfectione 
actus"  is  sufficiently  outlined  by  Tertullian. 

XI. 
Ad  rationem  peccati  concurrunt  substantia  actus  et  de- 
fectus  rectitudinis. 

XII. 
Privatio   debitae   rectitudinis   actui   morali   inest,   in 
quantum    caret    commensuratione     ad     regulam     legis 
aeternae  der  dictamen  conscientiae  voluntati  applicatam. 

XIII. 
Malum  morale  nee  esse  nee  concipi  potest  abstractions 
facta  a  lege  Dei  et  fine  quem  respicit  lex  divina. 

XIV. 
Peccatum  mortale  ex  parte  substantiae  actus  conveni- 
enter  definitur:  dictum  vel  factum  vel  concupitum  contra 
legem  aeternam.  Ex  parte  vero  defectus,  aversio  a  Deo, 
fine  ultimo,  per  voluntariam  conversionem  ad  bonum 
commutabile. 

XV. 
Peccatum  veniale  est  actio  moraliter  mala  quae  non 
tollit  principium  ordinis  ad  Deum,  finem  ultimum. 

XVI. 
Variae  normae  (S.  Thomae,  Scoti,  Vasquezii)  ad  stabi- 
liendam  specificam  distinctionem  peccatorum  reipsa  ab 
invicem  non  differunt. 

XVII. 
Proximo  malum  temporale  desiderare  ob  bonum  finem 
non  est  contra  caritatem. 

XVIII. 
Haud  licitum  est  fidelibus  quovis  modo  active  assistere 
seu  partem  habere  in  sacris  acatholicorum. 

XIX. 
Illicitum  est  sponte  vocare  ministrum  haereticum,  ut 
ipse  moribundo  solatia  religionis  praebeat. 

XX. 
Qui  libere  iurat  se  aliquid  facturum,  peculiari   reli- 
gionis  obligatione   tenetur    implendi    quod    iureiurando 
firmaverit. 


THESES  169 

XXI. 

Nunquam  licet  propria  auctoritate  se  ipsum  directe 
occidere. 

XXII. 
Non  licet  aggressorem  famae  occidere. 

XXIII. 
There  exists  a  moral  obligation  to  distribute  the  great- 
er part  of  superflous  goods  or  income. 

XXIV. 
Testis,  qui  legitime  interrpgatus  celat  veritatem  sed 
falsum  non  dicit,  probabiliter  ad  restitutionem  non  tene- 
tur. 

XXV. 
Secretum  commissum  strictius  obligat  quam  secretum 
naturale,  atque  etiam  secretum  promissum. 

XXVI. 
Non  in  unanimitate  explicationum,  sed  potius  in  con- 
tinua  attestationum  catena,  consistit  traditio  catholica; 
ac  proinde  a  veritate  aberrant  ii  qui  dogmata  catholica 
ab  explicationibus  theologicis  eorumdem  non  sedulo  dis- 
creverint. 

XXVII. 
Reiicienda  est  sententia  iuxta  quam  "dogmata  quae 
Ecclesia  perhibet  tanquam  revelata,  non  sunt  veritates  a 
caelo  delapsae,  sed  sunt  interpretatio  quaedam  factorum 
religiosorum,  quam  humana  mens  laborioso  conatu  sibi 
comparavit."    Ex  decreto  Lamentabili,  No.  22. 

XXVIII. 
Quod  christianae  religionis  dogmata  aut  ex  philoso- 
phorum  antiquorum  placitis  deprompta  fuerint,  aut  ad 
instar  germinis  biologici  profecerint,  historia  teste,  sus- 
tineri  nequit. 

XXIX. 
Non  in  concupiscentia,  sed  in  privatione  vitae  super- 
naturalis  sita  est  peccati  originalis  essentia. 

XXX. 
Conceptus  naturae  purae  a  theologis  exaratus,   licet 
speculationi  potius  quam  historiae  innitatur,  medium  ap- 
tum  praebet  ad  doctrinam  peccati  originalis  comparative 
intelligendam. 


170  THESES 

XXXI. 

Spiritus  Sancti  inhabitatio  a  gratia  sanctificante  dia- 
tinguitur,  quamvis  nunquam  separetur. 

XXXII. 

Propter  hanc  novam  vitam  animae  inhaerentem,  non 
solum  filii  Dei  nominamur,  sed  et  revera  sumus. 

XXXIII. 

Continuam  esse  gratiam  cum  vita  nostra  naturali,  licet 
ab  eadem  distinctam,  ex  concreto  examine  axiomatis, 
quod  scilicet  "gratia  non  tollit,  sed  perficit  naturam/' 
luculenter  demonstrari  posse  asserimus. 

XXXIV. 

In  iis  quae  Sanctus  Thomas  contra  Lombardum  de 
natura  gratiae  disserentem  urgebat,  inveniuntur  princi- 
pia  non  solum  ad  exortas  controversias,  sed  ad  futuras 
etiam  dirimendas  apta,  quasi  ipse  praesagiens  has  quo- 
que  prae  oculis  habuisset. 

XXXV. 

Admittendam  esse  gratiam  ab  actuali  distinctam  per 
modum  doni  permanentis,  quod  habeat  rationem  qualita- 
tis  et  habitus,  non  solum  traditionis  documentis,  sed  et 
argumentis  Sancti  Thomae  apertissime  constat. 

XXXVI. 

Prohibentur  clerici  per  se  vel  per  alios  negotiationem 
aut  mercaturam  exercere  sive  in  propriam  sive  in 
aliorum  utilitatem.    Canon  142. 

XXXVII. 

Si,  non  obstante  praescripto  can.  520,  521,  aliqua  reli- 
giosa,  ad  suae  conscientiae  tranquillitatem,  confessarium 
adeat,  ab  Ordinario  loci  pro  mulieribus  approbatum,  con- 
f  essio  in  qualibet  ecclesia  vel  oratiorio  etiam  semi-publico 
peracta,  valida  et  licita  est,  revocato  quolibet  contrario 
privilegio ;  neque  Antistita  id  prohibere  potest  aut  de  ea 
re  inquirere,  ne  indirecte  quidem ;  et  religiosae  nihil  An- 
tistitae  referre  tenentur.    Canon  522. 

XXXVIII. 

Religiosae  omnes,  cum  graviter  aegrotant,  licet  mortis 
periculum  absit,  quemlibet  sacerdotem  ad  mulierum  con- 
fessiones  excipiendas  appi-obatum,  etsi  non  destinatum 


THESES  171 

religiosis,  arcessere  possunt  eique,  perdurante  gravi  in- 
firmitate,  quoties  voluerint,  confiteri,  nee  Antistita  potest 
eas  sive  directe  sive  indirecte  prohibere.    Canon  523. 

XXXIX. 
Unicum  peccatum  ratione  sui  reservatum  Sanctae  Sedi 
est  falsa  delatio,  qua  sacerdos  innocens  accusatur  de 
crimine  soUicitationis  apud  iudices  ecclesiasticos.    Canon 
894. 

XL. 
Scientia  aut  opinio  nullitatis  matrimonii  consensum 
matrimonialem  neccessario  non  excludit.    Canon  1085. 

XLI. 
Sacra  Scriptura  non  solum  in  rebus  ad  fidem  per  se 
spectantibus,  sed  in  omnibus  et  singulis  partibus  divini- 
tus  inspirata  est. 

XLII. 
Nullum  inter  protocanonicos  et  deuterocanonicos  li- 
bros  discrimen  ostendunt  epistolae  S.  Clementis  Romani 
atque  Pastor  Hermae. 

XLIII. 
The  chronological  data  of  the  Old  Testament  are  not 
at  variance  with  the  findings  of  prehistoric  archaeology 
in  regard  to  the  first  appearance  of  man  on  the  earth. 

XLIV. 
An  examination  of  the  first  Gospel  shows  that  the 
author  was  a  Christian  of  Jewish  origin,  and  that  he 
wrote  his  Gospel  for  readers  who  were  converted  from 
Judaism. 

XLV. 
The  education  of  St.  Paul  before  his  conversion  fitted 
him  providentially  for  his  mission  of  spreading  the  uni- 
versal gospel. 

XLVI. 
The  miraculous  element  in  the  Gospels  is  so  intimately 
woven  into  the  narrative  that  one  may  not  consistently 
reject  the  miracles  as  spurious  and  accept  the  sayings 
of  Jesus  as  authentic. 

XLVII. 
The  wonderful  cures  wrought  by  Jesus  defy  all  at- 


172  THESES 

tempts  to  explain  them  on  the  basis  of  hypnotism  or 
mind-cures. 

XLVIII. 
St.  Paul  is  a  most  powerful  witness  to  the  reality  of 
Christ's  bodily  resurrection. 

XLIX. 
The  transcendent  excellence  of  Jesus*  moral  and  reli- 
gious teaching  points  to  the  truth  of  His  claim  to  be 
divine. 

L. 
The  teaching  of  Jesus  in  regard  to  man's  duties  to  God 
runs  directly  counter  to  the  principles  of  religious  in- 
difference. 

LI. 
Certum  videtur  omnia  sacramenta  a  Christo  imme- 
diate esse  instituta. 

LII. 
Ad   validitatem   sacramenti   requiritur   et   sufficit   in 
ministro  intentio  virtualis. 

LIII. 
Sacramentorum  valor  non  pendet  a  sanctitate  vel  fide 
ministri. 

LIV. 
Conversio  totius  substantiae  panis  in  substantiam  cor- 
poris Christi  Domini  nostri  et  totius  substantiae  vini  in 
substantiam  sanguinis  eius  convenienter  et  proprie  a 
sancta  catholica  ecclesia  transsubstantiatio  est  appellata. 

LV. 
Sacramentum  poenitentiae  lapsis  post  baptismum  ad 
salutem   est  necessarium   ut   nondum   regeneratis   ipse 
baptismus. 

LVI. 
A  comparative  study  of  Tertullian's  De  Paenitentia 
and  De  Pudidtia  justifies  the  conclusion  that  the  edict  of 
Callixtus  is  not  to  be  considered  as  having  brought  about 
an  innovation  in  the  early  penitential  practice. 

LVII. 
The  reference  to  one  class  of  serious  sin  only  in  the 


THESES  173 

edict  of  Callixtus  finds  a  plausible  explanation  in  the  con- 
dition of  the  Church  at  the  time  the  edict  was  issued. 

LVIII. 
The  Galileo  affair  cannot  be  adduced  as  evidence  of  the 
Church's  opposition  to  true  science. 

LIX. 
The  action  of  Henry  VIII  in  suppressing  the  English 
monasteries,   dictated  as  it  was  by  cupidity,  was  in- 
jurious to  the  best  interests  of  the  kingdom. 

LX. 
England's  breach  with  the  Papacy  was  due  to  the 
divorce  of  Henry  VIII  rather  than  to  irritation  engen- 
dered by  foreign  domination. 


Vidit  Sacra  Facultas  : 

JOANNES  A.  RYAN,  S.T.D.,  p.t.  Decanus. 

PETRUS  GUILDAY,  Ph.D.,  p.t.  a  Secretis. 
Vidit  Rector  Universitatis : 

♦THOMAS  J.  SHAHAN,  S.T.D.,  J.U.L. 


174  BIOGRAPHY 


BIOGRAPHY. 

The  author  of  this  dissertation  was  bom  August  28, 
1884  in  Tiffin,  Ohio.  He  received  his  elementary  educa- 
tion at  St.  Joseph's  Parochial  School  of  the  same  city, 
his  college  and  seminary  course  at  the  Pontifical  College, 
Josephinum,  Columbus,  Ohio,  where  he  was  ordained 
priest  by  the  Rt.  Rev.  J.  J.  Hartley,  1909.  For  eight 
years  he  was  a  member  of  the  teaching  faculty  of  the 
Josephinum.  From  1917  to  1920  he  pursued  theological 
studies  at  The  Catholic  University  of  America,  Washing- 
ton, D.  C,  under  the  direction  of  Dr.  John  A.  Ryan,  Dr. 
Edmund  T.  Shanahan  and  Monsignor  Dr.  Filippo 
Bemardini,  to  all  of  whom  he  hereby  expresses  his  sin- 
cere thanks. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 

STAMPED  BF.T.OW 

AN     INITIAL    FINE      OF     25     CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED    FOR    FAILURE  TO    RETURN 

,      THIS  BOOK  ON   THE  DATE  DUE.      THE  PENALTY 

WILL  INCREASE  TO  50  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 

DAY    AND    TO    Sl.OO    ON     THE    SEVENTH     DAY 

^OVERDUE. 

K 

tF(N) 

OCT  25  1932 

APR     6   1934 

RECCIB.    AP8W15 

DEC    S    1938 

JUL  13  199] 

2;Aug'49HJ 

■-•.:..,..              ^! 

Htu'D  Lie 

AI)B23'65-I2f 

i\ 

RECEIVED 

rfHiripw" 

LOAN  DEPT. 

APR  1 1 1975  '' 

^                  LD  21-50m-8,-32 

^ 


I 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES       Yc  4|040 


CQ07D53S33 


^52390 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CAUFORNIA  LIBRARY 


